There Is Simply Not Enough Revenue. The Deficit Is Too Large. Debt Is Out Of Control.

Hello Sirthinksalot,

Sirthinksalot said:
I agree. Build the wall!!!
Click to expand...

Republican concern for spending and the debt becoming too high evaporated as soon as a Republican was elected. Republican views on the debt have changed from 2015 to 2017. It has been a near reversal of views. In 2015, Republicans were extremely concerned about the debt. After Trump was elected, Republicans don't think the debt is much of a priority at all. As a matter of fact, even though the CBO said their tax cut for the rich would result in insufficient revenue, they went right through with it anyway, fully knowing that economic growth would not pay for the shortfall. And they did this even as national polls indicated a majority of Americans were against it.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Sirthinksalot,



Republican concern for spending and the debt becoming too high evaporated as soon as a Republican was elected. Republican views on the debt have changed from 2015 to 2017. It has been a near reversal of views. In 2015, Republicans were extremely concerned about the debt. After Trump was elected, Republicans don't think the debt is much of a priority at all. As a matter of fact, even though the CBO said their tax cut for the rich would result in insufficient revenue, they went right through with it anyway, fully knowing that economic growth would not pay for the shortfall. And they did this even as national polls indicated a majority of Americans were against it.
Click to expand...

Hi Politalker,

Coincidentally, Democratic concern for spending and the debt becoming too high materialized as soon as a Republican was elected.

My 2 cents is that we raise plenty of revenue, we just spend too much. The best thing we could do would be to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement over what the role of government ought to be. I believe government should have a very limited role and that people who share your viewpoint want government to do far too much.
 
PoliTalker said:
Revenue: $3.3 Trillion.

Federal Budget $4.1 Trillion.

We do not have enough revenue to cover our budget.

Read the numbers yourself. The numbers don't lie. Here's all the numbers:

US DebtClock

$841 billion. That's the current deficit.

That figure represents how much less revenue exists to compared to our budget.

That means, every year at that difference, we add another nearly trillion dollars to the debt.

That is unacceptable. We cannot continue to do that. Going bankrupt will be far worse than raising taxes on the rich.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer:

We are not collecting enough taxes to pay for our country. We have to raise taxes, and the increase must be born mostly be the rich, because they have benefited the most from our economy.

When the economy is doing well, we are collecting the most revenue possible under the current tax structure.

When the economy is doing poorly, less revenue comes in.

If we have a recession, the deficit is going to shoot up even higher.

It is irresponsible for us to be giving the most advantaged people in our country a big tax cut when not enough revenue is coming in to pay the bills.

If we can't reduce the deficit during a good economy, we will NEVER be able to do it during a recession.

People lose jobs during a recession. They depend on the government safety net. Revenue drops during a recession.

That's why we have to do it now.
Click to expand...

Well...at least Trump and his buddies got richer....that is what counts to Republicans you know?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Damocles,



Incorrect.

There are two ways.

Increase revenue, or decrease spending.

Either one, or a combination of both, will work.
Click to expand...

Neither will work without stopping the increased spending. And "increase revenue" is done by growth, raising taxes will only go so far in a world with automatic increases in spending and built in inflation.
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,

Sirthinksalot said:
Hi Politalker,

Coincidentally, Democratic concern for spending and the debt becoming too high materialized as soon as a Republican was elected.

My 2 cents is that we raise plenty of revenue, we just spend too much. The best thing we could do would be to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement over what the role of government ought to be. I believe government should have a very limited role and that people who share your viewpoint want government to do far too much.
Click to expand...

We do not raise enough revenue. If we did, it would be enough to pay the bills.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Sirthinksalot,



We do not raise enough revenue. If we did, it would be enough to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

Hi Politalker,

It is a simple truth that the amount required to pay the bills is dependent upon the size of the bills. The amount of other people's money that government wants to spend doesn't really have a limit. We need to control spending and prioritize.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Sirthinksalot,



We do not raise enough revenue. If we did, it would be enough to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

AMEN!

Fact is, we are not even running up the bills we should be. We NEED to put massive amounts of money into infrastructure...and into expanding the safety net programs that should be expanded.

Not an easy concept to get through to some people.
 
Hello Frank,

Frank Apisa said:
AMEN!

Fact is, we are not even running up the bills we should be. We NEED to put massive amounts of money into infrastructure...and into expanding the safety net programs that should be expanded.

Not an easy concept to get through to some people.
Click to expand...

I know, right?

Tax rates for the super-rich in the 50's were over 90% (on the amounts OVER what everybody else earns. Amounts UNDER that level are taxed at similar rates to others.)

During the 50's we BUILT our infrastructure. Interstates, hospitals, schools, airports, bridges, power grid, courts, prisons, etc. That's because we taxed the rich to do it. And a good job was for life. A corporation felt a responsibility to workers who dedicated the biggest part of their lives. A single income was enough to: support a family, buy a house, have a new car every few years, take (paid) vacations, have (paid) sick leave, raise kids, AND have a retirement pension.

Now they want to make America great again.

America was great when we taxed the rich more to pay for it!
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Hello Frank,



I know, right?

Tax rates for the super-rich in the 50's were over 90% (on the amounts OVER what everybody else earns. Amounts UNDER that level are taxed that similar rates to others.)

During the 50's we BUILT our infrastructure. Interstates, hospitals, schools, airports, bridges, power grid, courts, prisons, etc. That's because we taxed the rich to do it. And a good job was for life. A corporation felt a responsibility to workers who dedicated the biggest part of their lives. A single income was enough to: support a family, buy a house, have a new car every few years, take (paid) vacations, have (paid) sick leave, raise kids, AND have a retirement pension.

Now they want to make America great again.

America was great when we taxed the rich more to pay for it!
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Poli.

Thank you for it.
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,

Sirthinksalot said:
Hi Politalker,

It is a simple truth that the amount required to pay the bills is dependent upon the size of the bills.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Simple math.

Sirthinksalot said:
The amount of other people's money that government wants to spend doesn't really have a limit.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. Total spin. First of all, it is OUR money, not 'other people's. And secondly, it IS limited by the knowledge that it is NOT unlimited. This right-slanted spin buzz term: 'other people's money' is totally tied into government hatred. If the right would stop hating government and try to make government better, then we could appreciate out government more. We have an amazing country. That can't happen without our government. We are LUCKY to have the government we have. We should be FAR more appreciative. The nature of our evolving government is established by our Constitution.

It is disingenuous of the right to hate our government and love our Constitution. One establishes the other. They are inextricably linked. It was understood by the framers that a static government could not possibly endure. It was intended that our government change over time. As the country grows, so must the government. As the world becomes more advanced and technical, so must our government. It is not possible to please everybody or to have a government which everyone is happy with all the time. It is only logical that there will be some aspects of government which will be bothersome to some people. Few people will be happy with everything government does. This is only logical, and should be accepted.

Reagan did this country a massive disservice by saying government is the problem. No. Government is not the problem. Attitudes toward government are the problem. Trying to make government smaller as the country grows larger is a problem. Can government be improved? Of course it can. There is always room for improvement. Anybody who has a problem with some aspect of government should try to improve it by making positive suggestions to their Representatives.

Government is not some kind of enemy, monster or foreign evil entity. It is US. WE made our own government, and WE have the power to change it, fix it, improve it. Hating our government is counter-productive. Hating our government is hating the USA. Hating our government is dangerous. We need to love our government. Putting it down, or saying mindless baloney like 'government is the problem' is not helpful at all. It hurts the USA to say that. That would not be allowed on a military ship. Gossip is dangerous. Loose lips sink ships. If our country is like a giant ship, propaganda is like gossip. Propaganda is dangerous. Propaganda could destroy the USA.

Sirthinksalot said:
We need to control spending and prioritize.
Click to expand...

Of course we do. And we already do that. But we are not stringent enough with those efforts. What can we the people do? We can make it a point to inform ourselves and contact our representatives to let them know how we feel. And if we don't like our representatives adn elected officials, we should vote them out of office and put people in there that will do better. I am very encouraged to see so many diverse young women getting elected into office. That is going to be much better representation than old out-of-touch white men.

Government spending is tricky. Money paid to government in the form of taxes is not lost. It doesn't disappear into a black hole. Government is not profiting from revenue. Every penny government collects is paid out in spending. (Actually, government pays out more than it takes in, which is at the heart of the problem.) Most government spending supports jobs, provides income for individuals, contributes to the economy. Cutting government spending also cuts economic activity, reduces the GDP. If all 'entitlements' were suddenly stopped it would throw the country into a recession at least, and probably a depression. Also, government spending can help the country recover from a recession. We just saw this with the stimulus under Obama. Republicans were against it, but guess what? It worked. The economy recovered under Obama as a result of temporarily increased government spending.

We don't want to cut government spending too much or too fast. Or maybe not at all. There is far less impact to the economy if we simply tax the super-rich more.
 
PoliTalker said:
We don't want to cut government spending too much or too fast. Or maybe not at all. There is far less impact to the economy if we simply tax the super-rich more.
Click to expand...

It's just like the Democrats to keep looking for more sugar daddies.

We've got a money problem and the best solution is to cut wasteful spending like entitlements.
 
Hello hvilleherb,

hvilleherb said:
It's just like the Democrats to keep looking for more sugar daddies.

We've got a money problem and the best solution is to cut wasteful spending like entitlements.
Click to expand...

I thought you liked the good economy. So why would you want to do something that is going to hurt the economy?

Why not just tax the rich? That doesn't hurt the economy.
 
hvilleherb said:
It's just like the Democrats to keep looking for more sugar daddies.

We've got a money problem and the best solution is to cut wasteful spending like entitlements.
Click to expand...

You fucking heartless, classless morons are the scum of the planet. You do not deserve to be considered human.
 
The debt is not just something that happened. It was exactly what the Repubs have been planning from Reagan on. Every Repub prez cut taxes, grew the military and spent like crazy. When the Dems come in, the Repubs give lip service to the debt, but it is just show. They have grown the debt for the precise reason of ending social programs. Like Vileherb says, end entitlements. They are not entitlements, they are programs that we have invested in for our whole lives. Some are programs for the sick, injured or those unable to work. Civilized coutruies care about such people and want to help them. Social Security helps kids whose parents die or the bread winner dies. Paul Ryans dad died and Social Security helped him through school. But, I kknow, he has his now. Screw the rest of the country.
 
Last edited:
Gunny2009 said:
Based on the US Constitution, what should the Fed Govt be spending money on?
Click to expand...

On whatever the congress decides the government should be spending money for.

You do realize that is the way things work...based on the US Constitution?

We elect people to govern...and they govern (unless they are Republicans)...and a part of governing is deciding what we should spend money on.

Jeez! I'm amazed that had to be spelled out to someone attempting to participate in a conversation such as this.
 
Frank Apisa said:
On whatever the congress decides the government should be spending money for.

You do realize that is the way things work...based on the US Constitution?

We elect people to govern...and they govern (unless they are Republicans)...and a part of governing is deciding what we should spend money on.

Jeez! I'm amazed that had to be spelled out to someone attempting to participate in a conversation such as this.
Click to expand...

That is not really the way it is supposed to work. The Constitutions gives the responsibilities of the Fed Govt, and gives limits on the same. The fact that "we the people" have decided to ignore the constitution does not change that fact.
 
Gunny2009 said:
That is not really the way it is supposed to work. The Constitutions gives the responsibilities of the Fed Govt, and gives limits on the same. The fact that "we the people" have decided to ignore the constitution does not change that fact.
Click to expand...

Dream on.

We elect...and the people we elect decide what we spend money on.

If you want to be a revisionist...fine with me.

I love a good laugh.
 
There has been no big increase in spending for something new. The only reason spending has increased is due to demand for existing programs within the safety net.

Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism seeks to reduce benefits and wages for work in - order to increase profit. That's what capitalism does. The result of that is more dependence upon the government safety net. That causes spending to go up.

The same super-rich people who are pocketing the lion's share of the spoils of capitalism, the ones who are getting rich by taking things away from workers (such as collective bargaining,) are the ones who are responsible for the increased demand on the government safety net. They are the ones who should be paying for that.

We need to tax the rich more because it is the righteous and moral thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top