Tax The Rich Enough To Cover The Deficit.

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

It takes two to tango of course, Congress & the President. I don't know if Trump's personal wealth has anything to do with his position on government spending. The largest spending items on the federal registrar are entitlements & the military. He ran on not touching entitlements and increasing military spending.

That's a good point because now he wants to reduce entitlements, so he lied when he said he would not do that.

So while he spoke of the issues of our national debt he never really had any true desire to address.

He also said he could completely eliminate the debt in 8 years.

We can go back to George W. and the Republican Congress during his first term. Same thing. No fiscal discipline and no spending veto's from W. The only real time we have sort of done anything was under Clinton and a Republican Congress.

And Clinton had to shut down the government to force that Republican Congress to do the right thing.

 

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



Well they must have paid SOMETHING because we used the money to build all that infrastructure that's falling apart now.

Even with the deductions, they were paying more than the rich are paying now.

AND THEY DIDN'T LEAVE like you said they would.

Obama raised taxes. Why didn't the rich leave THEN?

Total baloney, this hoax that the rich would leave if we raised taxes. They never did before before taxes got lowered too much.

The tax cut was a bad idea. We opposed it because we said it would make the deficit too high.

We were right.

Now the deficit is too high.

Taxes need to be put back up.

We need to raise taxes on the rich enough to cover the deficit.

THEN we can talk about spending.

Yes they paid something, about the same as they did before. The money spent was borrowed beyond what increase came from the expanding economy.
If you alter taxes so that the ratio changes they WILL leave.
Just like the English did when they tried it there.
Revenues are up post tax cuts. The deficit is as well because spending is up.
We dont gave a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



That's a good point because now he wants to reduce entitlements, so he lied when he said he would not do that.



He also said he could completely eliminate the debt in 8 years.



And Clinton had to shut down the government to force that Republican Congress to do the right thing.

Where has Trump said he's going to do anything to entitlements?

Republicans in Congress forced Clinton to become more fiscally conservative. That was a good thing. They battled and it produced a better result.

 

[LV426]

We can go back to George W. and the Republican Congress during his first term. Same thing. No fiscal discipline and no spending veto's from W. The only real time we have sort of done anything was under Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Under Clinton, federal spending grew every single year.

Every.

Single.

Year.

The Conservatives opposed the tax increases in 1993, and Clinton vetoed their proposed tax cut in 1999...the same tax cut that would pass two years later that you refer to as "no fiscal discipline".

But...don't take it from someone who admits they're pretty dumb on this subject...

 

[LV426]

Republicans in Congress forced Clinton to become more fiscally conservative.

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

WRONG AS USUAL.

Clinton's budget grew every year; federal spending grew 32% during Clinton:

Outlays
1993: $1,409.4
1994: $1,461.8
1995: $1,515.7
1996: $1,560.5
1997: $1,601.1
1998: $1,652.5
1999: $1,701.8
2000: $1,789.0
2001: $1,862.8

Cawacko, like Flash, is a lying sack of shit who will lie about anything to avoid admitting he's wrong.

 

[LV426]

Republicans in Congress forced Clinton to become more fiscally conservative. That was a good thing. They battled and it produced a better result.

What a fuckin' retcon attempt here just so cawacko didn't have to admit he's full of shit.

Federal spending grew 32% during Clinton's term.

Republicans lost the shutdown, ceding $300B more in federal spending, then lost their tax cut in 1999 to a Clinton veto.

Nothing cawacko or Flash says is ever the full truth. It's always filtered through the prism of their egos.

 

[Celticguy]

It takes two to tango of course, Congress & the President. I don't know if Trump's personal wealth has anything to do with his position on government spending. The largest spending items on the federal registrar are entitlements & the military. He ran on not touching entitlements and increasing military spending. So while he spoke of the issues of our national debt he never really had any true desire to address.

We can go back to George W. and the Republican Congress during his first term. Same thing. No fiscal discipline and no spending veto's from W. The only real time we have sort of done anything was under Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Clinton/Gingrich has Dot com boom which isnt likely to repeat.
Yes its a conundrum to be sure.
Entitlements will have to change, no getting around that. Current participants will have to be grandfathered but the newbies will see a different package.
Pain will come from Medicare/Medicaid. But its the AMA and Pharma who will feel it. And the ancillary providers (labs, diagnostics). People will crow over insurance but ghey wont object to lower charges as it means lower payments and the margins really dont change.
Oh... and lawyers. Malpractice will have to get back to actual malpractice.
Its thorny and requires med schools tesume teaching diagnosis but it can be done as we really have no choice.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello CookieCrusher,

You started a stupid thread....what do you expect?
But, you're correct, I should ignore you in the future.

Are you unable to fairly discuss the subject of balancing the federal budget on a level playing field?

You think that is a stupid discussion?

You are just as free to place me on Ignore as I am to reciprocate. I am reaching out before it gets to that point to see if you can participate in a civil discussion of balancing the federal budget. Are you able to do that?

So far, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but that will run out. Are you here to discuss the issues facing our nation or just take cheap shots and essentially make unhelpful drive-by posts...

You can drop your guard with me. I am not going to take any sucker-punches. I am here to talk about politics. That is why I chose my handle. I am not into trading insults or unloading frustration on the other side.

You know, part of the problem with American politics is that we are far too polarized. People are way too hung up on the we/they theory and furthering mindless stereotypes. People are not that stupid. People have differing views on subjects, yes, but the only way to resolve these differences is to talk with one another and listen to what others have to say. I don't think people who disagree with my views are idiots. I don't see that. I see people with very different lives and different reasons for believing what they believe. I find it fascinating to learn what motivates other people. Often times the motivation is little more than hatred for 'the other side.' If that is your motivation, and all you want to do is attack me or all liberals because you have identified me as one, and you think all liberals are the same, that they all hate America, or whatever, then I would agree there is not much we will be able to talk about and we should both place one another on Ignore.

But before we do that, I want to make one thing perfectly clear.

I don't place anybody on Ignore simply because I disagree with their views.

I only place people on Ignore if we are unable to have a mutually respectful discussion. I refuse to be the subject of online abuse, which takes two in order to occur. Online abuse can only exist if the victim acts as an enabler. As soon as I have determined that somebody is trolling me then I shut that down. I do not play the enabler role. I see that as a waste of time.

I am giving you a chance here. All you have to do is give me the same respect I am giving you. Mutual respect is the only way an intellectual discussion can occur. Just think of me like you would any friend. I am trying to be friendly here. Are you able to reciprocate?

You should know that this is a one-time offer. Once I make the decision to place a poster on Ignore I never take them off. Ever. Your choice.

I gotta tell ya. I would be surprised if we don't end up on mutual ignore. I've looked at your short posting history and seen that you have been pretty short with people for no good reason. If all you want to do is trade insults you'll find plenty of company for that here. I am simply letting you know that I don't play those games. I am offering your a chance to transcend above that level. I want to talk to your mind, not your feelings. Look at my page. I have a lot of friends. You'll find that my friends include liberals and conservatives. I also have a lot of people on Ignore. And my Ignore list includes liberals and conservatives. This shows I am not BSing, here. Straight talking. I am appealing to that part of you that has good reasons for being conservative. I want to hear why you are conservative, why hold your views, but only if your reasoning has logic and common sense behind it. If it is hate-motivated then as far as I am concerned we need talk no further. It's up to you. So I ask why you came here. Did you come here to talk about just plain politics?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

Yes they paid something, about the same as they did before. The money spent was borrowed beyond what increase came from the expanding economy.
If you alter taxes so that the ratio changes they WILL leave.
Just like the English did when they tried it there.
Revenues are up post tax cuts. The deficit is as well because spending is up.
We dont gave a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

Thanks for your view but I disagree.

It is only expected that spending will rise for expanding government. Government needs to expand to deal with all the issues facing the modern country. We simply cannot run a country in 2019 with the government of 1776. This is a great country. We have a lot of modern things to deal with. Our government provides many services and benefits which did not exist long ago. That all costs money. It's worth it. This is a great country. You can't have a great country if you are cheap. The idea that we can cut spending to balance the budget is a wrong idea. We have a lot of people getting fabulously rich in our great country. It is not too much to ask them to pay for our great government. The poor sure can't do it.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Where has Trump said he's going to do anything to entitlements?

Republicans in Congress forced Clinton to become more fiscally conservative. That was a good thing. They battled and it produced a better result.

Trump is trying to redefine who qualifies for food assistance. These changes would toss 3.5 million out of the program. Bad idea. Better to tax the rich more who have no problem putting food on their own table.

 

[CFM]

We liberals would love to have all kinds of new soak-the-rich taxes to pay for all kinds of free stuff, but we can get by without that.

How about you Republicans do the responsible thing instead and tax the rich enough to cover the deficit?

Or is 'compromise for the good of the country' not in your vocabulary.....

Why didn't all those that want to tax others voluntarily pay for the deficits during the Obama administration?

 

[Truth Detector]

Under Clinton, federal spending grew every single year.

Federal revenue is ALWAYS increasing you dunce.

The Conservatives opposed the tax increases in 1993,

But Clinton ignored them, passed them and then lost the House and the Senate in a massive midterm slaughter. The 45 year lock on the Congress the Democratic Party of the Jackass had was lost.

Then we got the first balanced budget produced under the Republican controlled Congress which hadn't occurred with Democrats for over 30 years.

and Clinton vetoed their proposed tax cut in 1999...the same tax cut that would pass two years later that you refer to as "no fiscal discipline".

Yep, and then Bush won the 2000 election. Fascinating how these things play out.

But...don't take it from someone who admits they're pretty dumb on this subject...

Yes, you are pretty dumb and ignorant.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

Clinton/Gingrich has Dot com boom which isnt likely to repeat.
Yes its a conundrum to be sure.
Entitlements will have to change, no getting around that. Current participants will have to be grandfathered but the newbies will see a different package.
Pain will come from Medicare/Medicaid. But its the AMA and Pharma who will feel it. And the ancillary providers (labs, diagnostics). People will crow over insurance but ghey wont object to lower charges as it means lower payments and the margins really dont change.
Oh... and lawyers. Malpractice will have to get back to actual malpractice.
Its thorny and requires med schools tesume teaching diagnosis but it can be done as we really have no choice.

The best way to do health care is to have a National Health Service. People would serve just like people serve in the military. And we could identify a need for workers where there are too few, train them in government schools and offer them a good living serving the United States. People who serve their country are dedicated to their work. There is no reason anybody should be getting rich from the misery of those who are sick or injured. That is despicable at the outset.

 

[CFM]

Hello Celticguy,



The best way to do health care is to have a National Health Service. People would serve just like people serve in the military. And we could identify a need for workers where there are too few, train them in government schools and offer them a good living serving the United States. People who serve their country are dedicated to their work. There is no reason anybody should be getting rich from the misery of those who are sick or injured. That is despicable at the outset.

What's despicable is when someone refuses to provide to themselves something it is their responsibility, not the government's, to provide, they demand someone else they think has too much money be forced to pay for it.

If you care as much as you claim, pay their premiums or let them do without.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Trump is trying to redefine who qualifies for food assistance. These changes would toss 3.5 million out of the program. Bad idea. Better to tax the rich more who have no problem putting food on their own table.

When I'm talking entitlements I'm speaking about S.S. & Medicare/Medicaid. Those are the biggest spending items for the federal government along with the military.

 

[Truth Detector]

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

WRONG AS USUAL.

Clinton's budget grew every year; federal spending grew 32% during Clinton:

Outlays
1993: $1,409.4
1994: $1,461.8
1995: $1,515.7
1996: $1,560.5
1997: $1,601.1
1998: $1,652.5
1999: $1,701.8
2000: $1,789.0
2001: $1,862.8

Cawacko, like Flash, is a lying sack of shit who will lie about anything to avoid admitting he's wrong.

Dishonest Moron;

Jan 1993 BillyBob sworn in deficit at $255 billion.
1994 Republicans take over the House and the Senate. Deficit drops to $203.2 billion
1995 deficit drops to $164 billion.
1996 deficit drops to $107.4 billion
1997 deficit drops to $21.9 billion
1998 deficit disappears and surplus is $69.3 billion
1999 surplus grows to $125.6 billion.
2000 surplus becomes $236.2 billion.

You won't find any record of surpluses from a Democratic controlled congress. Democrats can only spend Americans into the poor house.

 

[Gonzomin]

When I'm talking entitlements I'm speaking about S.S. & Medicare/Medicaid. Those are the biggest spending items for the federal government along with the military.

SS can only pay what they take in. They are not permitted to get shortages from the treasury. It was founded that way. If they are short, they cut the checks down. So no, it does not cause deficits.
What causes a huge part is the endless tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Another is our ridiculous military budget. We spend more than the next 10 nations combined and have done so for many decades.

 

[CookieCrusher]

Hello CookieCrusher,



Are you unable to fairly discuss the subject of balancing the federal budget on a level playing field?

You think that is a stupid discussion?

You are just as free to place me on Ignore as I am to reciprocate. I am reaching out before it gets to that point to see if you can participate in a civil discussion of balancing the federal budget. Are you able to do that?

So far, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but that will run out. Are you here to discuss the issues facing our nation or just take cheap shots and essentially make unhelpful drive-by posts...

You can drop your guard with me. I am not going to take any sucker-punches. I am here to talk about politics. That is why I chose my handle. I am not into trading insults or unloading frustration on the other side.

You know, part of the problem with American politics is that we are far too polarized. People are way too hung up on the we/they theory and furthering mindless stereotypes. People are not that stupid. People have differing views on subjects, yes, but the only way to resolve these differences is to talk with one another and listen to what others have to say. I don't think people who disagree with my views are idiots. I don't see that. I see people with very different lives and different reasons for believing what they believe. I find it fascinating to learn what motivates other people. Often times the motivation is little more than hatred for 'the other side.' If that is your motivation, and all you want to do is attack me or all liberals because you have identified me as one, and you think all liberals are the same, that they all hate America, or whatever, then I would agree there is not much we will be able to talk about and we should both place one another on Ignore.

But before we do that, I want to make one thing perfectly clear.

I don't place anybody on Ignore simply because I disagree with their views.

I only place people on Ignore if we are unable to have a mutually respectful discussion. I refuse to be the subject of online abuse, which takes two in order to occur. Online abuse can only exist if the victim acts as an enabler. As soon as I have determined that somebody is trolling me then I shut that down. I do not play the enabler role. I see that as a waste of time.

I am giving you a chance here. All you have to do is give me the same respect I am giving you. Mutual respect is the only way an intellectual discussion can occur. Just think of me like you would any friend. I am trying to be friendly here. Are you able to reciprocate?

You should know that this is a one-time offer. Once I make the decision to place a poster on Ignore I never take them off. Ever. Your choice.

I gotta tell ya. I would be surprised if we don't end up on mutual ignore. I've looked at your short posting history and seen that you have been pretty short with people for no good reason. If all you want to do is trade insults you'll find plenty of company for that here. I am simply letting you know that I don't play those games. I am offering your a chance to transcend above that level. I want to talk to your mind, not your feelings. Look at my page. I have a lot of friends. You'll find that my friends include liberals and conservatives. I also have a lot of people on Ignore. And my Ignore list includes liberals and conservatives. This shows I am not BSing, here. Straight talking. I am appealing to that part of you that has good reasons for being conservative. I want to hear why you are conservative, why hold your views, but only if your reasoning has logic and common sense behind it. If it is hate-motivated then as far as I am concerned we need talk no further. It's up to you. So I ask why you came here. Did you come here to talk about just plain politics?

This topic has been discussed numerous times by political "experts", and the CBO has chimed in on it and stated their findings. Go read.
Stop pretending like your some reasonable leftist who want what's best for America.......lol

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

When I'm talking entitlements I'm speaking about S.S. & Medicare/Medicaid. Those are the biggest spending items for the federal government along with the military.

Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.

After reading your article I was actually going to give Trump credit for attempting to address the issue. After reading this article I give him far less credit. Not to mention none of this it seems was actually passed in the bill he signed and he clearly didn't fight for it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howard...-to-cut-medicare-by-845-billion/#601734fe1d07