Drumpf!!!!! Orange Man Bad!!!! also, how do you spell personal accountabilitee?

[DBS1970]

Everyone is in favor of smaller government when their side is not in charge.

I am always in favor of smaller government. But I am in a very small minority, most people want the "government" to pay for their ****.

 

[Sarge]

Revenues minus spending = surplus or deficit

Cutting spending is not a cure all. All government spending supports a job somewhere, whether its a senior citizen spending their SS check at a restaurant, a government contractor getting paid to
build military equipment, or the government employing someone directly. When you cut spending, revenues end up dropping as well. You have to balance out taxing and spending. When deficits are
constantly rising, there is no balance and your headed for a reckoning.

Well, yes it is a cure all. If you don't spend more than you take in, you don't create a deficit. And spending more than we take in is what has us $23 trillion dollars in debt.

I don't understand how people get upset that Trump put a tax cut in place, complain that it is increasing the deficit and then in the next breath support "free" college, "free" healthcare and the retarded green new deal. How ya gonna pay for all that stuff? Oh that's right, you're not. You are gonna run a deficit. If you tax the nation 100% it will not pay for these pie in the sky good idea fairies running around. But you support that **** so that kind of deficit spending is ok.

And government as an entity does not have any money. Everything they have is taken from the people through taxation and theft. I would have to say that the jobs are supporting the government, because without taking from the people who work those jobs, what can government really do?

I don't understand the liberal mentality. I don't. Every proposal the democrat party puts forth requires government intrusion, increased spending and more taxation. But you are angry with Trump over a tax cut.

Liberals scream "tax the rich" as a war cry, knowing damn well that these stupid taxes will affect everybody, because taxing the rich still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket toward covering it. And you jump right on board, happy to let government control your life because it is one less thing for you to worry about.

Throw illegal immigration on that too. That is costing the nation over $100 billion dollars annually, and with the amount of people coming over the border, that cost is only going to increase as more people take out benefits they didn't help put in. But you are ok with that **** too.

I am a conservative. I think our government should provide basic services, defense of the nation and not much else. I think people should be responsible for their lives, not the government. Trying to give everything to everybody is impossible.

 

[IndySteel]

Liberals can't grasp the concept of basic math.

 

[Supersteeler]

Liberals can't grasp the concept of basic math.

What it comes down too is that Liberals are emotional reactors rather than thinkers. Many may be very intelligent in life but when it comes to politics and policy, that brain gets shut down completely and they function on feelings 100%.

 

[fedderone]

Say it with me, people........

FLAT TAX
TERM LIMITS

Here are the cure alls we need to drain the swamp.

Also, glad to see Ted Cruz and AOC coming together to propose banning former congress people from becoming lobbyists.
Must be getting quite frigid in hades.

 

[Superman]

The Federal revenues declined 2008-2014 due to the Obama economy, i.e., dreadful employment, income, median income, etc. and resulting declining tax revenues.

The revenues are going to be higher in 2019 than ever before due to the exploding economy. Tax cuts can reduce revenues, but a targeted tax cut that triggers massive economic growth more than pays for itself. It really is no different than a private company putting items on sale. Do we believe that companies do so because they want to lose money? Of course not.

Selling 9,000 widgets at $12 profit per widget generates more profit than selling 6,000 widgets at $17 profit per widget.

but why not just give the widgets away if you're selling them for less than $20? right!??!?

 

[Superman]

Liberals can't grasp the concept of basic math.

2+2=4, but there are now three numbers, so 2+2=4 is essentially 7. Conversely, 7-1=6, but since there are three numbers, 7-1=6 is really 3.

 

[deljzc]

Borrowing is fine to a point.

But there is a complicated relationship between borrowing, interest rates and revenue/growth.

Nothing even comes close to how democrats and Obama borrowed from 2009-2011 (Democrats controlled Congress as well). I mean, in 2009, revenue DROPPED 16.6% and spending INCREASED 17.9%. That is insane. I mean, it was equivalent to your household income going from $50,000 to $42,000 and you increase your spending from $60,000 to $70,000. That's what our federal government did in 2009. And they kept that up for 3 straight years.

Considering the GDP rose 5.9% between 2017 and 2018, our spending actually grew less. I still want to see actual 2018 revenue as well. I know Trump's tax cut went into effect but total projected revenues seem low to me. I can't find any "official" revenue yet for 2018 and I've seen a lot of conflicting reports. I guess tax season has to be 100% over and then we'll get the final numbers.

I track GDP, inflation, fed fund rate, unemployment, fed revenue, fed spending and interest spending on an excel spreadsheet just for my kicks and giggles. Nothing so far in the Trump economy (and it's short so far) is cause for that much of an alarm, despite the sudden "media and democratic" concern that they ignored when Obama was going crazy.

 

[Troglodyte]

When social security was set up as a ponzi scheme people's life expectancy was around the same as the retirement age. I guess you think it still is at this moment? Did they raise it to where it should be? Or are you just sounding out stupid **** to hear your gums rattle?

Life expectancy at 65 hasn’t changed that much, the change in life expectancy has a lot to do with the decrease in infant mortality. Social Security’s problems have more to do with people having less kids and waiting longer to have them. Kasich suggested cutting current benefits and was widely criticized for it. The popular “solution” has been to kick the can down the road and delay eligibility for future generations who aren’t currently concerned with it. If you cut current benefits or increase the current eligibility age you piss off two generations of voters: current beneficiaries and thier kids who they will turn to when money gets tight.

 

[Superman]

Life expectancy at 65 hasn’t changed that much, the change in life expectancy has a lot to do with the decrease in infant mortality. Social Security’s problems have more to do with people having less kids and waiting longer to have them. Kasich suggested cutting current benefits and was widely criticized for it. The popular “solution” has been to kick the can down the road and delay eligibility for future generations who aren’t currently concerned with it. If you cut current benefits or increase the current eligibility age you piss off two generations of voters: current beneficiaries and thier kids who they will turn to when money gets tight.

you must not consider 8 years "that much"
http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

 

[Troglodyte]

you must not consider 8 years "that much"

You definitely don’t consider the difference between “life expectancy at 65” and “life expectancy”. Life expectancy is currently 78, but that’s not the life expectancy of someone who is currently 78.

 

[21STEELERS21]

The largest deficit in history was fiscal year 2009 1. 4 trillion which Obama inherited from Bush. The debt from Obama was already baked in and he ended up consistently
lowering it, lopping off nearly a trillion. Then another Republican gets in and deficits consistently go up each year. Republicans are only conservative when a Democrat is President.
Now we have a rising deficit, low unemployment and many economists think a recession is forming. Start building your bunker and saving canned goods. Great Depression II could
be on the way.

 

[Superman]

You definitely don’t consider the difference between “life expectancy at 65” and “life expectancy”. Life expectancy is currently 78, but that’s not the life expectancy of someone who is currently 78.

AOC is that you?

 

[Superman]

The largest deficit in history was fiscal year 2009 1. 4 trillion which Obama inherited from Bush. The debt from Obama was already baked in and he ended up consistently
lowering it, lopping off nearly a trillion. Then another Republican gets in and deficits consistently go up each year. Republicans are only conservative when a Democrat is President.
Now we have a rising deficit, low unemployment and many economists think a recession is forming. Start building your bunker and saving canned goods. Great Depression II could
be on the way.

better get out of the way before the sky falls on your head.

 

[Sarge]

better get out of the way before the sky falls on your head.

Personally, I don't think anyone even sees it as real money. I mean, who really thinks the US is EVER gonna pay off $23 trillion dollars? And if they did care, they wouldn't keep spending more than they take in. Reducing the deficit from $800 billion to $400 billion does nothing but slow the rate at which the debt grows. That's all any of them ever propose. If you want to eliminate debt, first thing you have to do is stop adding to it. We can't even get that part right.

 

[Steeltime]

The largest deficit in history was fiscal year 2009 1. 4 trillion which Obama inherited from Bush. The debt from Obama was already baked in and he ended up consistently lowering it, lopping off nearly a trillion.

Jee-zus. Bammy's first two budgets had deficits of $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion. He bravely oversaw deficit reductions down to $1.1 trillion, $680 billion, $485 billion, $438 billion, then back up to $585 billion and $665 billion. (Trump not responsible for the 2017 budget, right, 21??)

So your hero oversaw a total of $6.5 trillion - TRILLION - added to the national debt over a span of 8 years, or an average - AN AVERAGE, 21 - of more than $800 billion per year.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Now we have a rising deficit, low unemployment and many economists think a recession is forming. Start building your bunker and saving canned goods. Great Depression II could be on the way.

The deficit and burgeoning national debt are very serious problems - that apparently only now matter, after the $6.5 trillion goat-**** that was the Bammy economy. But in terms of where the deficit is in terms of our economy, the current deficit runs about the same as a percentage of GDP as it did during the 1980's and a significant portion of the Clinton years.

Bizarrely, you blame Republican Presidents for the deficit, apparently forgetting that the Constitution specifically delegates the power to tax-and-spend to Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Do you notice that the deficits explode when (D)ims hold Congress? 1975-1977, 1983-1989, 2007-2011. And when the budget was closer to balanced, the (R)'s controlled Congress - 1995-2001, for example? Did you notice that?

Yeah, thought so.

 

[Vader]

You definitely don’t consider the difference between “life expectancy at 65” and “life expectancy”. Life expectancy is currently 78, but that’s not the life expectancy of someone who is currently 78.

WTF? Are you having a stroke?

 

[deljzc]

The total debt number doesn't really mean anything. It's the interest per year you pay on it.

It's like the way house prices have kind of become "funny money". Most people in this country have no assets in their house, are in the first 10 years of their mortgage (or refinance) and are just worried about the month to month payment. Even when you go in to buy a car, salesman don't ever talk about the final cost or the car or even the total borrowed, all they want to know is "what do you want your monthly payment to be?".

The biggest scam Obama did was to get the fed to lower the fed borrowing rate to 0%. From 2008-2014, the fed fund rate was 0%. Just completely unheard of in the history of the fed.

That let Obama borrow trillions of dollars but pay very little interest on it. For example, in the year 2000, the federal government paid $360 billion dollars in interest on the debt. That was 20.2% of the entire federal budget. This after a decade (1990's) of arguably the best "fiscal management" in U.S. history. But back in the 1990's the fed rate was mostly between 4-6%.

Compare that to 2009, after borrowing $1.4 trillion dollars in 2008 (but at a very low interest rate), the U.S. only paid $385 billion in interest payments. That was only 10.9% of total government spending that year.

We spent less money on debt payments as a percentage of spending in every year since 2008 than we did at all during the 1980's and 1990's (almost half as much) because of how the fed has kind of changed the bar for interest rates. It's a dangerous precedent. Because the ability to lower interest rates is one of the safest and cleanest ways to boost a sluggish economy (rather than tax or spend your way out of it). But because interest rates are so low, there's really no where to go down.

The fed rate also effects bank profits, which is why I think you see the bank "cheat" to find other revenue streams (thus the mortgage crisis and derivative ponzi schemes).

It's one of the things I disagree with Trump about. His tax cut IS increasing the deficit (short term), which is why he's pushing the fed to keep interest rates low. But what is really healthy for the country is higher interest rates as we continue in a good economic boom.

 

[deljzc]

I would also like to point out this about the 2009 deficit. Yes, that was done in Bush's last year in office. But both the house and senate were controlled by Democrats (that the result of a Democratic sweep that changed for the House and Senate from red to blue in 2006). In many ways, the 2006 mid-terms emboldened the democrats to do their tax-and-spend ritual with or without Bush (who was a lame duck at that point).

 

[ark steel]

but why not just give the widgets away if you're selling them for less than $20? right!??!?

And pay errone $15/hour to make the widgets. Racist.

 

[ark steel]

WTF? Are you having a stroke?

Actually, trog is right on the basics.

I don't recall what the current total life expectancy is.

When it is said that the life expectancy is X, it means that is an "average" ofhow old people live to be from birth.

Once someone reaches a later age, they are more likely to live to/past 65 than when they were born.

However, that only relates to taking payments feom the system. IIRC, i think the expected payment stream from 65 was about 10 years at the inception of SS.

You gotta factor in pre 65 mortality when it comes to nm paying into the system, though.

 

[21STEELERS21]

I guess you guys are saying that if Bush served another 4 years there would have been no debt. Most of you just seem disingenuous. The financial crisis was a near depression experience, which
had to be dealt with in a certain way that would automatically raise deficits. That's a much different experience than raising deficits with 3.6% unemployment.

 

[Steeltime]

I guess you guys are saying that if Bush served another 4 years there would have been no debt.

Why, that's exactly what I said. Go ahead and use the quotation feature and repeat my statement. For some reason, I can't seem to find it. Oh, here it is:

 

[ark steel]

I guess you guys are saying that if Bush served another 4 years there would have been no debt. Most of you just seem disingenuous. The financial crisis was a near depression experience, which
had to be dealt with in a certain way that would automatically raise deficits. That's a much different experience than raising deficits with 3.6% unemployment.

Sounds like he was saying that we could SPECULATE what would have happened with Bush. We KNOW what happened with The Big O and his Dem majority.

 

[Sarge]

Jee-zus. Bammy's first two budgets had deficits of $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion. He bravely oversaw deficit reductions down to $1.1 trillion, $680 billion, $485 billion, $438 billion, then back up to $585 billion and $665 billion. (Trump not responsible for the 2017 budget, right, 21??)

So your hero oversaw a total of $6.5 trillion - TRILLION - added to the national debt over a span of 8 years, or an average - AN AVERAGE, 21 - of more than $800 billion per year.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html



The deficit and burgeoning national debt are very serious problems - that apparently only now matter, after the $6.5 trillion goat-**** that was the Bammy economy. But in terms of where the deficit is in terms of our economy, the current deficit runs about the same as a percentage of GDP as it did during the 1980's and a significant portion of the Clinton years.

Bizarrely, you blame Republican Presidents for the deficit, apparently forgetting that the Constitution specifically delegates the power to tax-and-spend to Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Do you notice that the deficits explode when (D)ims hold Congress? 1975-1977, 1983-1989, 2007-2011. And when the budget was closer to balanced, the (R)'s controlled Congress - 1995-2001, for example? Did you notice that?

Yeah, thought so.

Not for nothing, but Obama actually added about $8.5 trillion to the national debt. There is a ridiculous way it is all calculated. I mean, even in the years where the deficit was less than $500 billion, the debt increase was anywhere between $800 billion and $1.1 trillion.