Well, I think all income should be progressively taxed at the same rate regardless of its source.
Federal deficit grows by 32% to $900B
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Well, I think all income should be progressively taxed at the same rate regardless of its source.
You do get representation for your taxation, you even said so yourself when you said you don't mind paying taxes for roads.
You need to delete this profile and create a new one. Any good will you might have had was just squandered by your mis-management of your argument on this thread.
No, it's tax cuts.
Here's Kansas' budget.
With the repeal of the tax cuts, suddenly the budget goes from deficits to surplus.
So tax cuts cause deficits. Repealing them creates surpluses. That's what happened in Kansas. You can see right there in the budget below:
Did you look at this? Spending doesn't change with the tax cuts vs. without them.
Repealing the tax cuts (SB 30) turns Kansas' budget from a deficit into a surplus.
Those are necessary when we're in economic contraction.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
The Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class doesn't have to pay any attention to that, they'll be subsidized with socialism provided by the unsubstantial people.
Joe Capitalist
Racism is a disease
Everybody with half a brain knows that Bush Jr's American Dream Downpayment Act was the cause of the Subprime Bubble.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
When are these stupid politicians realize they need to STAY OUT of the private industry economy. My brother-in-law was a real estate broker for 40 years and when Bush Jr. passed his American Dream Downpayment Act that allowed low income buyers to purchase homes with no money down, he said there's going to major problems because of it and he was right.
What a fucking liberal Bush Jr was. Allowing people to get a mortgage with zero money down is insane. They have no "skin in the game" so of course it's easy for them to walk away and leave the bank holding the bag.
Bush Jr. is the worst president in history because he destroyed the economy and threw the country into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
George Bush Jr: One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.
Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners. (Applause.) And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal. The law I sign today will help us build on this progress in a very practical way.
Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage payment, but are unable to make the down payment. So this legislation will authorize $200 million per year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families. These funds will help American families achieve their goals, and at the same time, strengthen our communities.
No, your reading comprehension is faulty. I only stated total spending had increased 330% since 2000. Since I did not know about individual benefits had been cut until I read you article I made no argument that benefits grew--my argument was that as an entitlement total SNAP spending grew because the number of people collecting benefits grew because of the recession. As millions of new jobs were created and we recovered from the recession total spending decreased somewhat from $75 billion to $68 billion but still much higher than the $17 billion in 2000 or even the $37 billion in 2008.
I said you did not acknowledge total spending had increased because you said I ignored individual benefits being cut. We both stated facts. You are the only one claiming I tried to "hide" something although you did the same thing.
Again, you make up straw arguments the other person did not make but based on your stereotyped knee jerk reaction of your perception of what the other person thinks, not what they actually said. You attempt to turn factual issues into partisan arguments.
I see you still have done nothing about your anger issues.
I have only had one account with one name. This shows your paranoia.
Which was in response to me saying the program was cut. It was cut; benefits were cut. You totally just ignored what prompted your response, and then you ignored the response to you.
Bad faith.
OK, so what's the point you're trying to make? You responded with that for a reason, so what was the reason?
I didn't. I responded to your line directly. I acknowledged it in my response which you ignored.
You've been operating exclusively in bad faith during this thread.
Totally untrue. You make stuff up based on your imaginary view of what others are thinking. What statement did I make that suggests I don't care about deficits under Trump? You cannot show that post(s) because it does not exist. I oppose increased spending, deficits, and debt under every president. I opposed the Trump tax cuts without an equal cut in spending.
You arguments are not creditable because they are not based on what the other poster(s) actually say but your attempt to put them into some simplistic partisan category.
You made it a partisan argument. That was you who did that. When you tried to say that SNAP's budget has grown, in a total vacuum. So by doing that, you're giving the impression that the beneficiaries are taking advantage of a system that has only grown because of shitty Conservative policy on wages and tax cuts. So you say, dumbly, that SNAP spending has increased, therefore nothing was cut from the program. That was your original argument until you learned that benefits had been cut. But you choose to focus on the overall growth of SNAP, without that context, as some kind of example of the welfare state or uncontrolled government spending. That's what you were arguing, whether you want to accept it or not.
Bad faith actors make me angry, yes. Because you know better, but you're either too lazy or too partisan to care.
LOL!
You're still not getting it.
The tax cut is the problem here because the tax cut is what exploded the deficit by 32%. So you keep talking vaguely about "cutting spending", but you don't really have an idea of what that entails, nor do you have any plan to replace that spending with anything in the economy. When you cut government spending, you cut demand in the economy. If you don't replace that demand with any, you end up contracting the economy because there's less spending.
You clowns seem to think that for every dollar in government spending that is cut, there's an equal and opposite increase in spending from the private sector. And that's just fucking stupid. So you want to cut spending, but you don't really know what you want to cut, and then to top it all off, you're not replacing government spending with any other spending, thus you're contracting the economy.
What a fucking idiot.
It was passed under George Bush. The balanced budget occurred under a Republican Congress but under President Clinton. Presidents in office when a law passed usually get credit (or blame) because it would not have passed without their signature. The economy does better under a divided government.
Democrats always correctly give credit to Clinton for the balanced budget and the honest ones give credit to Bush for the increased minimum wage; only the partisan hacks attempt to divide the parties into good guys and bad guys.
Because of the Democratic Congress that passed it.
Do you know how bills become law in this country, or are you just faking it like everything else you do?
No thanks to Republicans, though. Remember, Republicans had to cave to Clinton and accept $300B more in spending because they lost the shutdown battle. Then Republicans tried to unbalance the budget with a tax cut in 1999 that Clinton vetoed. Those tax cuts would eventually pass a couple years later as the Bush Tax Cuts, and they took a record $236B surplus in 2000 and turned it into four record deficits over the next 8 years.
Again, all because you shitheads cut taxes.
So we had a balanced budget that Republicans tried unsuccessfully to unbalance at the end of the 90's, only to erase the surplus Clinton protected in 2001 by passing the Bush Tax Cuts. What then followed were 7 consecutive years of deficits, four of which were all-time highs, and the last one still stands as the highest deficit ever. That's primarily because of your tax cuts.
Getin the ring
Verified User
900 billion?
thanks Obama
thanks Obama
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
The president don't have the purse strings idiot! Congress does the spending- they do the budget!
The president just has to sign the budget bills in order to keep the government open for business.
I'm sure Obama told congress every year, "Is this the best you can do"?
Let me tell you how you don't fix the deficit- You'll never fix the deficit by allowing the rich and famous to skirt their tax obligations while putting the tax burden completely off onto the hardest working Americans like the Republicans did.
Wake up idiots! Smell the shit the Republicans are trying to shovel down your throats!
Getin the ring
Verified User
how could anyone be this ^^^^ stupid and still be sitting upright
look clown,
your party keeps running on NOT cutting taxes, protecting illegals, supporting people who $hit on our flag and our veterans.
And this whiny little girl persona you've taken on may be with you for quite some time