How would you balance the budget?

[Truth Detector]

Id rather be a tax and spend liberal, than a borrow and spend Retrumplican.
Borrowing is not responsible.

Hold on snowflake; borrowing and spending is all we had during Obamunism. Were you like Rip Van Winkle during that time?

Again, we don't have a REVENUE or tax collection problem, we have a massive SPENDING problem.

Revenues have risen by (1965 = 116.8 billion; 2017 = 3,316.2 billion) 2,839%. 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.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

That still will not solve the deficit problems we face. Interest on our debt takes up over 7% of the Federal budget. Just the interest.

 

[reagansghost]

I just illustrated that NO tax reduction act has EVER resulted in less revenue.

pathetic deflection

answer my question or STFU

 

[Truth Detector]

until revenue is boosted by taxing the top 1% and the bloated defense budget is slashed nothing will change

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.

really?

how did Trump and the GOP congress boost our current budget deficit to a trillion dollars?........more spending or less revenue?

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.

pathetic deflection

answer my question or STFU

I did answer it you brain dead clueless leftist dullard. Deflection? I'm the only one here dealing with FACTS you ignoramus. All we've gotten from you is crying, ranting and flailing.

I do wish you had a brain. Really I do.

 

[reagansghost]

I did answer it

no you didn't

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Very few of them are. Which ones do you despise more, the spenders, or the program cutters?

That question smells like "So, Mr. Smith, did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?"

A healthy economy has a mix of both, to get the budget under control. Our fat bloated military could stand some drastic cuts. So could our corporate welfare programs.... let's close those loopholes. Medicare fraud isn't as rampant as it once was -- or maybe the fraudsters have gotten sneakier. Lots more loopholes and crackdowns to be done there. Financing higher education needs a good going-over. I'm sure you can add more to the list.

 

[Jarod]

I would cut military spending after a review of what is effective and what is not. I would increase taxes on upper middle class and above. I would drastically cut unessential spending for at least a few years, and I would take measures to slowly devalue the dollar.

 

[Truth Detector]

no you didn't

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.

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.

 

[Truth Detector]

A healthy economy has a mix of both, to get the budget under control. Our fat bloated military could stand some drastic cuts.

Once again for the uneducated and low IQ liberal left; if you slashed the entire military budget, it would not solve the budget deficit problems we face.

I don't know why that is so hard to comprehend. Is it fat and bloated because you say so snowflake?

So could our corporate welfare programs.... let's close those loopholes. Medicare fraud isn't as rampant as it once was -- or maybe the fraudsters have gotten sneakier. Lots more loopholes and crackdowns to be done there.

What loopholes?

Financing higher education needs a good going-over. I'm sure you can add more to the list.

What financing? I see a lot of word salad up there but NOTHING specific that would lead me to believe that you have even the slightest clue of what you are erupting about.

 

[Truth Detector]

I would cut military spending after a review of what is effective and what is not. I would increase taxes on upper middle class and above. I would drastically cut unessential spending for at least a few years, and I would take measures to slowly devalue the dollar.

ALL of which would not solve the problem, but exacerbate them. Yay you!

Liberals apparently cannot comprehend that we do not have a REVENUE problem and that the Military only takes up 16% of the Federal budget. It represents 3.5 percent of GDP. The defense budget amounts to $790 billion which is 16.6% of a $4.746 trillion Federal budget. Contrast that with mandatory social welfare spending which takes up 2.85 trillion, or 60% of the Budget, and interest on the debt at $482 billion and you can see where the solution is, and it is not cutting the military.

When interest on the debt starts becoming larger than defense spending, you know you have a serious problem. Democrats don't care. Their agenda calls for trillions more in expenditures and even places a massive compliance burden on the private sector.

I always have to laugh when liberals who cheered Obamunism for eight years and his massive trillion dollar deficits, now seem so concerned about deficit spending.

 

[Oneuli]

Hello Oneuli,



"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.'

Yep. I think it really is that cynical. But I'm hoping we can convince at least a few conservatives here to put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) and figure out what it would take, in terms of real budget numbers, to reach balance. I think if they were make an honest effort at doing so, it would change their perspective, because they'd realize the kinds of spending programs they generally fixate on just aren't were the big changes can be found. They're trying to squeeze blood from stones.

 

[Oneuli]

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.

Note, we overspend on "security" so much that we could cut $300 billion from the military budget and still more than double the budget of the next-closest nation. Just how much should we prioritize it.

As for prioritizing based on what's in the Constitution, it's worth remembering that right there in the Preamble one of the key goals is spelled out as promoting the general welfare.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yep. I think it really is that cynical. But I'm hoping we can convince at least a few conservatives here to put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) and figure out what it would take, in terms of real budget numbers, to reach balance. I think if they were make an honest effort at doing so, it would change their perspective, because they'd realize the kinds of spending programs they generally fixate on just aren't were the big changes can be found. They're trying to squeeze blood from stones.

Still bloviating that false narrative eh?

It's so damn cute when liberals pretend to suddenly be concerned about deficits after the massive record breaking increase we witnessed during Obamunism. Really it is.

 

[evince]

https://www.aarp.org/money/investing/info-2018/seniors-before-social-security.html



How Did Older Americans Get By Before Social Security?
To appreciate what Social Security provides for older Americans, it’s useful to look back at the ways seniors built a nest egg — or, more accurately, how most of them didn’t — before the program was put in place in 1935 to help the country recover from the Great Depression.
So how did older Americans get by? Website Gobankingrates.com compiled a list of 16 things that served as a safety net for seniors before Social Security, though “safety net” doesn’t really apply to many of the options, which include panhandling, moving into almshouses or poorhouses, or simply dying impoverished, which was the fate that befell 1 in every 2 older Americans in the years after the 1929 stock market crash.
Among the most “reliable” resources were pension plans, though as of 1932 only 15 percent of American companies offered employees such an option. State pensions were available for the lucky few government workers; by 1935 about 3 percent of elderly Americans were receiving those benefits. And in the years after the Civil War, those injured during military service received pensions. By the early years of the 20th century, less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was still benefiting from those.
Annuities gained popularity in the years before the Depression, as the practice of large, extended families providing a safety net for elder members diminished. And savings accounts were useful to some, too, though banks weren’t as trusted or as regulated. Thus, the old cliche of stuffing money into a mattress wasn’t an outlandish or impractical notion — often, it was the most practical option, at least for the few seniors who had cash on hand. Some seniors relied on help from church congregations and neighbors to stay afloat. A few had investments that survived the crash.
It’s safe to say that Social Security was one of the most important federal programs for America’s older workers, and recent studies provide confirmation: A 2016 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed that Social Security benefits lifted more than 22 million Americans above the poverty line the previous year. The study estimated that without Social Security, more than 40 percent of seniors in American would be living at or below the poverty level.

what kind of society lets their old people live in horrible poverty without healthcare?

a republican designed one

 

[Truth Detector]

Note, we overspend on "security" so much that we could cut $300 billion from the military budget and still more than double the budget of the next-closest nation. Just how much should we prioritize it.

Note that you could slash the entire military budget and still have a massive budget problem.

As for prioritizing based on what's in the Constitution, it's worth remembering that right there in the Preamble one of the key goals is spelled out as promoting the general welfare.

The preamble does not equate to your Marxist Socialist agenda. It is clear what the intent in the Constitution means and is. It is a clear limitation on the power of the central government which limits its role to defending the nation, administering our laws and managing copyrights.

I don't see Medicare for all in there. I don't see Social Security in there. I don't see food stamps. Those are ALL reserved powers of the States. We are a Republic of States, not the Fascistic third world shit hole you leftist dunces wish to turn it into.

I do wish you were as smart as you stupidly believe you are.

 

[evince]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/



The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

if you had any integrity you would have praised Clinton instead of hating him for outing your false concern

 

[Ross Dolan]

Best way to "balance the budget"...is to raise taxes.

The upper brackets should be raised considerably.

The upper middle brackets should be raised considerably also.

And the middle middle brackets should be raised considerably also.

The lower middle brackets...and the bottom brackets should not be raised at all.

The trick is to get legislators elected who will do that.

An easier trick would be to land a man on the sun...and return him safely to Earth.

 

[Truth Detector]

The REAL solutions to a Federal Government that has outgrown it's constitutional limitations and spends trillions of taxpayer money it doesn't have:

(1) Eliminate the entire abomination called the Federal Tax Code. It is nothing more than a political document that empowers the people we send to Congress. Supplant it with the FAIR consumption TAX.
(2) Significantly reduce the massive Internal Revenue Service. They would probably only need a third of the staff once the FAIR TAX is implemented.
(3) Term limits on the House and the Senate. SIX terms for the House, and TWO terms for the Senate. Once served, they can no longer be a Congress person.
(4) Abolish the following departments because they are not in the Constitutional purview of the Federal Government: Agriculture - it's a State issue; Labor - it's a State issue; Health and Human Services - it's a State issue; Housing and Urban Development - it's a State issue; Education - it's a State issue.

This is the ONLY way you will get our Federal house in order. Anything less is mere window dressing that will do NOTHING to reduce the power of the checkbook. As long as we have self-serving professional politicians in Congress with the power of the purse to buy votes, you will have a severe spending problem.

 

[Truth Detector]

Best way to "balance the budget"...is to raise taxes.

That s simplistic, moronic and would do NOTHING to solve the problem. But thank you again for proving what a low IQ dullard you are and why you are a devout constituent to the Party of the Jackass.

 

[evince]

Laffer himself says 50% tax on corporations gives you the MOST revenue