Bankruptcy occurs when no one buys your goods or services anymore.
No. Many companies go bankrupt while still selling goods and services. The issue come when you're not making enough money to cover your expenses, and nobody will lend to you.
Tax cuts have NEVER led to lower revenues.
Each of the big recent upper-class tax cuts (Reagan's, Bush's, and Trump's) was followed by a period when revenue growth rates fell precipitously, such that they were no longer anywhere close to keep up with a normal pace of spending growth. Each time, predictably (and as predicted by anyone knowledgeable of economics) that resulted in the growth of enormous deficits.
FACT: we don't have a revenue problem in this nation, we have a SPENDING problem.
That's not a fact. It's an opinion. Here's a fact: our non-military spending in this country has long been some of the lowest of any wealthy nation in the world, as a share of GDP. Currently, every large wealthy nation dedicates more of its GDP to non-military government spending than we do. What you're saying is that in your opinion, our extremely low spending (relative to our international peers) should be made still lower, so that our extremely low taxation is enough to cover it. I think it makes more sense to bring that extremely low taxation up, rather than to cut our already austere budget. But, if we're going to focus on budget cutting, it makes sense not to go after social spending, which is already unusually low in this country, but instead our military budget, which is the highest, relative to GDP, of any wealthy nation other than Israel.
You can thank Democrats for all the federal debt
The deficit fell in real terms under Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. It rose under Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump. Coincidence?
The ONLY time we had a balanced budget in the last 40 years was with Republicans in charge during Clinton's presidency
Yet, as you probably know, the sudden decline in deficits started under a Democratic Congress and ended as soon we had a Republican president, notwithstanding a continued Republican Congress. The reason that move to the black coincided perfectly with the Clinton presidency, and not the Republican Congress, is that the Democratic president, not the Republican Congress, is what mattered. When you have a Republican Congress and Republican president, you don't get fiscal conservatism. You get reckless upper-class tax cuts and an orgy of military over-spend. That's why it only took a couple years for Bush and his Republican Congress to turn a record surplus into a record deficit.
Democrats held the purse strings for five decades prior to 1994
For most of that time, debt was falling as a share of GDP. That changed in 1981. What happened in 1981 to drive debt back up as a share of GDP? Well, we elected a Republican imbecile as a president and he was paired with a Republican majority in the Senate. They pushed through reckless tax cuts and military overspend. The catastrophic rise of debt as a share of GDP that followed only reversed after Clinton had become president.
Specifically, between the end of WWII and FY 1981, federal debt fell from 118.9% of GDP to just 31.8% of GDP. But by the end of the Reagan/Bush disaster, it was back up over 60%.
You do know that only Congress can spend right?
Congress controls appropriations, but the president controls the bully pulpit, and in practice that has proven more important. For example, in the Reagan years, Reagan pushed hard for a vast increase in spending on the military, and that's just what we got. In the Clinton years, Clinton pushed for a more circumspect approach to military budgeting, and the military budget fells as a share of GDP.
You'll need that income to pay your share of the National debt then. Right now, your bill is around $162,000
Happy to do so. I just wish more of that had been run up to achieve long-term productivity gains, rather than pissed away in the deserts of the Middle East, or on unnecessary new toys for the generals.
