How would you balance the budget?

evince said:
and just like Ayn Rand you will collect it after railing against it your whole life

just like her you say that shit to make your self feel smart


try feeling some compassion once in awhile


your life wont be sooo bleek
Click to expand...

No, I won't collect it. It won't exist. That's the fucking point. But also, you're a fucking moron. Why wouldn't Rand take the money? She was FORCED to pay into it number 1, and Number 2 you're a fucking idiot if you give up money on the table/competitive advantage. Desh, your brain is made of calcified spaghetti. Shut the fuck up and kill yourself.
 
I Love America said:
So you will never complain about debt and deficits?

I look forward to Nancy’s balanced budget
Click to expand...

the world saw how your assholes actually reacted to balanced budgets the entire Clinton term


everyone knows its just one of the many lies your ass kings scream about
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
No, I won't collect it. It won't exist. That's the fucking point. But also, you're a fucking moron. Why wouldn't Rand take the money? She was FORCED to pay into it number 1, and Number 2 you're a fucking idiot if you give up money on the table/competitive advantage. Desh, your brain is made of calcified spaghetti. Shut the fuck up and kill yourself.
Click to expand...

same thing Ayn Rand said

it will exist


we just need to wait for te republican party to die
 
Billy you need to face you have been had


you believe fox news shittery instead of reality


are you EVER going to get tried of it and wake the fuck up?
 
I Love America said:
The good news is that spending bills originate in the House of Representatives so I look forward to the balanced budget Nancy Pelosi delivers

A Presidents budget is irrelevant
Click to expand...

The president proposed a crazy budget, that ant nothing.

Cutting takes without cutting spending is very irresponsible. Its like taking a lower paying job and putting the balance on a credit card.
 
Jarod said:
The president proposed a crazy budget, that ant nothing.

Cutting takes without cutting spending is very irresponsible. Its like taking a lower paying job and putting the balance on a credit card.
Click to expand...

Put the bong down snowflake; you're prattling incoherently again, as usual. Cutting taxes has NEVER led to lower revenues. I will post the evidence again so you leftist morons can stop bloviating that stupidity ad nausea.

Since the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, revenues have risen by (1965 = 116.8 billion; 2017 = 3,316.2 billion) 2,839%. How did tax cuts reduce revenue?

Spending during the same time period has risen by 3,369%. I would submit that if spending is rising faster than revenue, SPENDING is the problem and NOT revenues. Dumb fuck.

As for lying about the effect of tax cuts:

The United States Revenue Act of 1964 signed into law on February 26, 1964. Revenue in 1964 was 112.6 Billion. Revenue in 1965 was 116.8 billion. 116.8 is greater than 112.6. In 1966 it was 130.8 billion. 130.8 is greater than 116.8. By 1969 revenues had increased to 186.9 billion. That is an increase of 166%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law August 13, 1981. Revenue in 1981 was 599.3 billion. Revenue in 1982 was 617.8 billion. 617.8 is greater than 599.3.
By 1985 revenues had increased to 734 billion. That is an increase of 122.5%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) was signed into law on October 22, 1986. Revenue that year was 769.2 billion. Revenue in 1987 was 854.3 billion. 854.3 is greater than 769.2. In 1988 it was 909.2 billion. 909.2 is greater than 769.2. By 1990 revenue had grown to 1,032 billion. That is an increase of 134%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was enacted August 5, 1997. Revenue that year was 1,579.2 billion. Revenue in 1998 was 1,721.7 billion. 1,721.7 is greater than 1,579.2. In 1999 revenue was 1,827.5 billion. 1,827.5 is greater than 1,721.7. By 2000 revenue had grown to 2,025.2 billion. That is an increase of 128%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law 7 June 2001. Revenue that year was 1,991.1 billion.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was signed into law May 28, 2003. Revenue that year was 1,782.3 billion. Revenue in 2004 was 1,880.1 billion. Revenue in 2005 was 2,153.6 billion. 2,153.6 is greater than 1,991.1. Revenue by 2007 had grown to 2,568.0 billion. 2,568.0 is greater than 1,991.1. That is an increase of 129%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.
 
Hello Oneuli,

Oneuli said:
Trump's budget proposal is out and he is proposing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Since conservatives used to pretend they cared about deficits, I'm wondering what conservatives here would do to remedy that.

From a liberal perspective, achieving a balanced budget isn't that hard, since we don't treat our radically low taxes as a given, nor do we put our largest area of discretionary spending off-limits.

For example, using 2018 data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, consider the proposal of reducing our military budget to "only" 50% more than the combined spending of our two top potential opponents, Russia and China. That would be a huge budget in its own right, but it would save us about $300 billion per year.

Now consider taxes. The average tax revenues for a developed nation are 34.19% of GDP. So, say we wanted to be taxed less than a normal amount, but not radically less -- let's say 10% less than if we were at the developed-nation average. Based on a GDP of $20.9 trillion, that would bring in about $760 billion extra per year. So, right there, with $760 billion in extra revenues and $300 billion in lower spending, we've gone from a deficit to a surplus -- from about a $984 billion FY 2019 deficit, to a $76 billion surplus.

Note, were not talking about any hard sacrifices there. We'd remain a significantly "under-taxed" country, by the standards of developed nations, making us more attractive to business than our peers. And we'd continue to have a military budget about twice as large as the next-closest country's. So, as I said, this isn't a terribly difficult math problem for liberals. But how do you get there as a conservative? When you insist on radically low taxes and absurdly high military-industrial pork, where can you find enough savings to reach balance?

That's the problem Trump was tackling with his budget. Yet, despite his willingness to betray his campaign promises (and the nation's promise to its elderly) by slashing Medicare and Social Security, he couldn't even move the numbers in the right direction. So, if you could dictate the budget, could you reach balance? How, would you do it, in terms of specific numbers and programs?
Click to expand...

"When you insist on radically low taxes and absurdly high military-industrial pork, where can you find enough savings to reach balance?"

Oh, that's easy. You blame the poor for their own condition (even though the rich hold vastly more power to affect meaningful change,) and then you claim that anybody has the same opportunity to 'make it' if they just try hard enough and make the right decisions in life (such is which family to be born into, for starters,) and then you squint real hard to justify slashing the safety net to nothing. Then you campaign for dropping the minimum wage, and the rich earn vastly more, so they end up paying in a little more revenue on all the wealth they extract from the poor (who are subsequently relegated to 'slaves' who work, accrue endless payday loan debt, and live in dilapidated over priced slums owned of course by big corporations which shield responsibility from the stock holding owners.) And you claim this makes America great. And when it still doesn't add up you repeat that 'deficits don't matter.'
 
Jarod said:
The president proposed a crazy budget, that ant nothing.

Cutting takes without cutting spending is very irresponsible. Its like taking a lower paying job and putting the balance on a credit card.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Trumps budget like all Presidents budgets are irrelevant and have no force of law.

Remember 5th grade civics?

I look forward to Nancy’s balanced budget she puts forward and passes.
 
reagansghost said:
until revenue is boosted by taxing the top 1% and the bloated defense budget is slashed nothing will change
Click to expand...

A illustrated above, we do not have a REVENUE problem, but rather, a SPENDING problem. I do wish you had a brain, really I do.

You could slash the entire Military budget, which would be moronic, and it would not solve our deficit spending problem.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
This has certainly been true throughout my life time. I have never been able to figure out where (R)s got the ill-deserved reputation of being fiscal hawks. Do you know?
Click to expand...

Very few of them are. Which ones do you despise more, the spenders, or the program cutters?
 
Id rather be a tax and spend liberal, than a borrow and spend Retrumplican.

Borrowing is not responsible.
 
reagansghost said:
really?
how did Trump and the GOP congress boost our current budget deficit to a trillion dollars?........more spending or less revenue?
Click to expand...

Say what? Were you just born and missed the last eight years of Obamunsim you poor pathetic ignorant fuck?

I just illustrated that NO tax reduction act has EVER resulted in less revenue. How hard is that simple fact for you to comprehend snowflake? We SPEND much more than we take in. That is the problem you uneducated dumb fuck.
 
How would you balance the budget?
Click to expand...

Take last year's income, 85% goes to FedCo programs, and the remainder starts to pay off the debt. Prioritize spending by:
1. Enumerated programs that are constitutionally authorized (security).
2. Social Security, Medicare based on actual fiscal need.
3. All else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top