Never Trump

[The Thriller]

If you repubs really want to slash the deficit, slash our offensive budget and raise taxes.

To me, constantly whining about entitlements is such an old broken record. Young people want more government. And old farts aren't giving up their Medicare and Social Security.

So like immigration reform, your calls for entitlement reform to lower the deficit seem disingenuous at best.

The offensive budget? It can be slashed and we can keep our nose out of the Middle East too. Hell, we'll have to. We can't afford anymore republican wars there. They're just too damn costly.

 

[The Thriller]

Of course it's possible and we will pay it. It's in the Constitution that we have to. It would take a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing so. We actually pay off our debts all the time. Currently we just get new loans to pay back the old ones.

I'm sure though that you're wondering if we could pay it all off. It isn't necessary but it's possible. There are 2 questions that I think are more important. The first question is at what point does the interest on the debt become too much of a burden to taxpayers, because right now the interest is all we are effectively paying anyway. So far this fiscal year we have spent 219 billion dollars on interest service. LINK The answer to this question is basically "Deal with it". Like I said we have to pay it. If we don't want to pay a larger portion of our GDP in the future to interest then we either balance the budget or stimulate growth now. (<between those two is where the political argument lies)

The second question is when do bondholders lose faith in our ability to pay them back faster than inflation eats up their investment or they believe the likelihood that we will ignore/change the Constitution in order to avoid paying them is high enough that they quit buying them at a reasonable interest rate. The answer to this question in Greece(iirc)was about 120% debt to GDP ratio but Greece doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee, Brussels is less fond of Athens than Washington is of Washington, the US doesn't have the kind of social spending that Greece has, and Greece doesn't have the 18 Trillion dollar economy that gives us an economy of scale advantage. The answer to the second question is we don't know at what level the bond market will get spooked but we don't want to find out we have hit our limit in the middle of the next financial crisis, war, or whatever.

I think most people agree that our debt to GDP ratio is too high and needs to come down so that we have a little more breathing room. How we get there? As far as I can tell vitriol seems to be the path most people believe in.

Inconvenient facts:

Here is a list of federal spending as a percentage of GDP going back for several decades: 1975 — 19.8 percent; 1985 — 21.7 percent; 1995 — 19.7 percent; 2005 — 18.3 percent; 2015 — 20.5 percent.

Does anyone see a huge rise in spending here? Federal spending last year was slightly higher than in 1975, and slightly lower than in 1985. Federal spending has fluctuated in a very narrow range for a long time now. It's time to dump the "out of control" nonsense.

So if spending isn't much more than what it was 30 years ago, why the debt explosion? Lack of tax revenue. Over the past 30 years corporations and the 1 percent have essentially rewritten the tax code... In their favor.

Taxes have become more regressive, hurting the middle class and poor. Labor has been sacrificed in favor of investment. Now, you're charged a higher tax rate by working than by your capital gains (investments). As a result, the rich become richer. While labor continued to take it in the nuts

 

[babe]

I'm gonna bind it to the same reason the rich should be paying a higher tax rate; they have more to protect.

they have nothing to worry about. A handshake and a smile gets them into the best homes worldwide. Jeb Bush and Prince Abdullah, and anyone else who has a private jet. It's club fascism nd the NWO.

Aztec Bowery Wars. . . . study up on the reality of it all.

Our MIC corps, like Walmart, will favor what brings in the money.

 

[♪alt13]

Inconvenient facts:

Here is a list of federal spending as a percentage of GDP going back for several decades: 1975 — 19.8 percent; 1985 — 21.7 percent; 1995 — 19.7 percent; 2005 — 18.3 percent; 2015 — 20.5 percent.

Does anyone see a huge rise in spending here? Federal spending last year was slightly higher than in 1975, and slightly lower than in 1985. Federal spending has fluctuated in a very narrow range for a long time now. It's time to dump the "out of control" nonsense.

So if spending isn't much more than what it was 30 years ago, why the debt explosion? Lack of tax revenue. Over the past 30 years corporations and the 1 percent have essentially rewritten the tax code... In their favor.

Taxes have become more regressive, hurting the middle class and poor. Labor has been sacrificed in favor of investment. Now, you're charged a higher tax rate by working than by your capital gains (investments). As a result, the rich become richer. While labor continued to take it in the nuts

So you think we should freeze spending and raise taxes?

Edit: BTW that would be called balancing the budget and I never said anything about spending to GDP in my post. I was speaking about our accruing debt which is caused by deficit spending. So... nothing you said refutes anything I did but whatever. vitriol

 

[The Thriller]

So you think we should freeze spending and raise taxes?

Edit: BTW that would be called balancing the budget and I never said anything about spending in my post. I was speaking about our accruing debt which is caused by deficit spending but whatever. Like I said vitriol

I was speaking about how repubs always complain about he deficit yet strangely never suggest ever attacking the main drivers of the deficit; lack of tax revenue and defense spending. If these two ever were addressed then our debt issues would be significantly lessened.

It just seems so tired the mantra of "the debt! The spending! We need to attack mommy on food stamps and granny on social security!" While ignoring the fact that our tax rates are insanely too low while our offense budget is insanely too high. Its disingenuous to me when repubs call to attention the debt yet conveniently ignore our tax rates and offensive spending.

Seriously, can't we defend America just spending twice as much as China and four times as much as Russia?

 

[♪alt13]

I was speaking about how repubs always complain about he deficit yet strangely never suggest ever attacking the main drivers of the deficit; lack of tax revenue and defense spending. If these two ever were addressed then our debt issues would be significantly lessened.

It just seems so tired the mantra of "the debt! The spending! We need to attack mommy on food stamps and granny on social security!" While ignoring the fact that our tax rates are insanely too low while our offense budget is insanely too high. Its disingenuous to me when repubs call to attention the debt yet conveniently ignore our tax rates and offensive spending.

Seriously, can't we defend America just spending twice as much as China and four times as much as Russia?

I wouldn't disagree too much with that but then again no part of me believes that defense spending will go down under Clinton.

 

[Miggs]

If our national debt really was such a concern for you right wingies, why don't you ever suggest cutting down on the blank checks we're sending to our offensive defense budget and raise taxes? Why must we outspend #2 China 4 times in defense? Or #3 Russia 8 times? Can't we defend ourselves by just spending 2 or 3 times as much as China?

We have one of the lowest effective corporate taxes in the world. Estate taxes are near all time lows.

I don't know for sure but how much of what we spend on the military is simply on pensions/post-time served/retirement bennies. I would think pretty damn high.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't know for sure but how much of what we spend on the military is simply on pensions/post-time served/retirement bennies. I would think pretty damn high.

Veterans benefits aren't part of our offensive budget.

View attachment 4796

 

[Surely]

Of course it's possible and we will pay it. It's in the Constitution that we have to. It would take a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing so. We actually pay off our debts all the time. Currently we just get new loans to pay back the old ones.

I'm sure though that you're wondering if we could pay it all off. It isn't necessary but it's possible. There are 2 questions that I think are more important. The first question is at what point does the interest on the debt become too much of a burden to taxpayers, because right now the interest is all we are effectively paying anyway. So far this fiscal year we have spent 219 billion dollars on interest service. LINK The answer to this question is basically "Deal with it". Like I said we have to pay it. If we don't want to pay a larger portion of our GDP in the future to interest then we either balance the budget or stimulate growth now. (<between those two is where the political argument lies)

The second question is when do bondholders lose faith in our ability to pay them back faster than inflation eats up their investment or they believe the likelihood that we will ignore/change the Constitution in order to avoid paying them is high enough that they quit buying them at a reasonable interest rate. The answer to this question in Greece(iirc)was about 120% debt to GDP ratio but Greece doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee, Brussels is less fond of Athens than Washington is of Washington, the US doesn't have the kind of social spending that Greece has, and Greece doesn't have the 18 Trillion dollar economy that gives us an economy of scale advantage. The answer to the second question is we don't know at what level the bond market will get spooked but we don't want to find out we have hit our limit in the middle of the next financial crisis, war, or whatever.

I think most people agree that our debt to GDP ratio is too high and needs to come down so that we have a little more breathing room. How we get there? As far as I can tell vitriol seems to be the path most people believe in.

Thanks for the informative response. I personally try to avoid debt like the plague because I don't like paying interest. Imagine the programs we could fund as a nation if we didn't have any debt and could use the money we are currently paying in interest for other things.

 

[♪alt13]

Thanks for the informative response. I personally try to avoid debt like the plague because I don't like paying interest. Imagine the programs we could fund as a nation if we didn't have any debt and could use the money we are currently paying in interest for other things.

Personally I mostly agree with thriller but I also think it's largely the boomers debt and they should help to balance the budget. They demanded for 30 years lower taxes and increased spending. They shouldn't get their cake and eat it too, while leaving the bill for younger taxpayers. Which is why I think we should euthanize them. With them out of the way we can hit the reset button.

 

[JazzGal]

Personally I mostly agree with thriller but I also think it's largely the boomers debt and they should help to balance the budget. They demanded for 30 years lower taxes and increased spending. They shouldn't get their cake and eat it too, while leaving the bill for younger taxpayers. Which is why I think we should euthanize them. With them out of the way we can hit the reset button.

Hahaha! I'm on the tail end of the boomer generation. Does that buy me a pass for a few years, at least?

 

[str8line]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...nows-trump-best-himself/ar-BBsZGSm?li=BBnb7Kz

This is so ridiculous... and hilarious. Well done Trump, well done.

Listen to the audio.

 

[Miggs]

What is the Boomer's debt? If we're talking about personal fiscal responsibility the boomers are infinitely more fiscally responsible than those 40 and under imo. I have a feeling in about 25 years time there's gonna be a huge portion of the population who will be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Gameface]

What is the Boomer's debt? If we're talking about personal fiscal responsibility the boomers are infinitely more fiscally responsible than those 40 and under imo. I have a feeling in about 25 years time there's gonna be a huge portion of the population who will be in for a rude awakening.

I think you could say that at any point in time and be right.

 

[Miggs]

I think you could say that at any point in time and be right.

Not as great as is coming imo.

 

[babe]

Personally I mostly agree with thriller but I also think it's largely the boomers debt and they should help to balance the budget. They demanded for 30 years lower taxes and increased spending. They shouldn't get their cake and eat it too, while leaving the bill for younger taxpayers. Which is why I think we should euthanize them. With them out of the way we can hit the reset button.

Seriously mistaken here. Just make them work to pay it off. But you need to follow the money, and charge it to those who lobbied for the expenditures as well. And to the corporates who promoted this direction in spending, to pump up the sales receipts at the bigbox stores, McD's, and charge all the casinos/hotels what we pay in benefits for their workers. stuff like that.

But until you vote to for politicians who will audit the Fed/ end the Fed, you will never get close to making the proper people pay.

 

[babe]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...nows-trump-best-himself/ar-BBsZGSm?li=BBnb7Kz

This is so ridiculous... and hilarious. Well done Trump, well done.

Listen to the audio.

all I can say. . . is. . . Nixon reincarnate. But at least a real man.

Women have brains wired better, more interconnections between hemispheres, and stuff, more nuanced, so to speak, and are always thinking of/doing too many things at the same time. Only a man can draw a straight line through a national issue and decide quickly enough what has to be done to keep the nation intact. With women, all you get, after a nuclear holocaust, is "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

 

[Jamezz]

 

[babe]

Smuckers. . . with a name like that, it's gotta be good.

Trump. No phony, no balony. With his unpremeditated genuine "real deal" manner, he's what Americans want. Real Americans, that is.

 

[gandalfe]

all I can say. . . is. . . Nixon reincarnate. But at least a real man.

Women have brains wired better, more interconnections between hemispheres, and stuff, more nuanced, so to speak, and are always thinking of/doing too many things at the same time. Only a man can draw a straight line through a national issue and decide quickly enough what has to be done to keep the nation intact. With women, all you get, after a nuclear holocaust, is "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Remember all those nuclear wars started by women?

...

OK, um, well, there was one. Harry Truman, wasn't it, who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Truman was a woman, right?