Trump trillion-dollar-plus deficits are putting America on a path to fiscal ruin

oh this is good.
this thread is just getting juicy

Yes, of course its not popular to advocate for reducing government programs. But I dont care; I want leaders that are more concrened with doing whats good for the country than winning their next election.

Our government levels of spending is not sustainable; we need leaders that are willing to get the deficit under control.

The RINOs in congress are more concerned with getting elected. Just a fault of our system.

We all know the government is wasting money, but until the majority of elected officials put stopping that as the priority, then all we will get is lip service.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The deficit was fixed under Clinton. It's possible, we just need to stop pretending like compromise is a dirty word.

That's more BS. Out of Clinton's entire presidency, he only had a surplus during ONE of those years.

How come all the other industrialized nations haven't disappeared into financial oblivion? Obviously you are missing something and I suspect it's the fact that national health makes the underlying cost of healthcare cheaper while you assume it must stay steadily climbing as it has in the U.S. with private healthcare.

a reply to: Deetermined

How is that BS? Just because his surplus didn't exist throughout his Presidency doesn't mean he didn't fix it at one point. Even your post confirms I was right by admitting he had a surplus for one year.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ONE year doesn't mean squat in light of the entire situation. Besides, Clinton was forced into balancing the budget for one year by his Republican controlled Congress, otherwise, that never would have happened if he had his way.

a reply to: Deetermined

You really have trouble just admitting that Clinton did good, don't you?
"RAWR! The surplus didn't last long enough" "And even the fact it exists is thanks to the Republicans!"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

See. This is why I think you aren't listening to a word I'm saying. You are clearly making the assumption that I'm a dedicated liberal partisan. I've been an independent my whole life. I didn't come to my political conclusions by accident. I came to them after immersing myself in both sides of the argument and using logic to come to the more correct solution.

posting history is what most base their opinions from. If you look at yours, from a neutral perspective, I wonder if it would look independent?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Getting back to a surplus would require serious cuts in social spending. Democrats would never do it. Clinton balanced the budget by only having a 2.5% increase in social spending, the lowest of any President.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or they could raise taxes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or they could raise taxes.

There aren't enough taxes in the world.

When was the last time they raised taxes and didn't simply spend more?

What we would end up with is more taxes and more spending and the same problem.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or they could raise taxes.

There aren't enough taxes in the world.

Says who? Where's the math to prove this point?

When was the last time they raised taxes and didn't simply spend more?

That's an entirely different issue.

What we would end up with is more taxes and more spending and the same problem.

Not if it is done right. What's created our current governmental reality is voter apathy and neglect of following the government. You get the government you work for. If the people stand up and demand higher taxes, a surplus budget, and proper social programs then the politicians can make it work.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, the debt is at about 175,000 per tax payer, so they would have to hike those taxes up pretty high.

originally posted by: six67seven

The Trump deficits are the result of changes in federal spending and revenues that will continue to be in place until some president and Congress decide to reverse them, that is, to increase taxes and make cuts to popular programs.

Why can't we make cuts to UNpopular programs just the same???

Pork is still a thing, right??

Like paying for Trump's frequent golfing trips and Mar-a-Lago? I'd go for that. It'd be a good start. We (hopefully) ditched the Big Parade.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Says who? Where's the math to prove this point?

By our math, achieving a balanced budget by 2025 by raising the top two rates – those which only apply to income significantly above $400,000 – would require increasing the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to about 102 percent. This is an obvious impossibility, since few taxpayers would continue to work at a 100 percent tax rate.

www.crfb.org...

a reply to: Byrd

I agree, but that's a drop in the bucket. To fix the problem we need serious cuts in social spending and popular items have to be torched. It would require concerted effort of both parties working together and the MSM helping with the sell.

Unfortunately none of that will happen.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Careful. The debt is a totally different animal than what we were just discussing. Before we were talking deficits and surpluses. The total government debt is a COMPLETELY different monster from the discussion we were having. I was merely suggesting to return to a surplus.

Well, the debt is at about 175,000 per tax payer, so they would have to hike those taxes up pretty high.

Depends on the timetable to pay down the debt. Of course, I'm sure you are aware that no politician Republican, or Democrat, or even Independent wants to pay off the debt totally (doing so would crash the economy and leave the country with no monetary supply to get it back on its feet). But in any case, returning to a surplus would eventually pay that debt down if we maintained that surplus.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That math is only for expanding the tax rate for the top two income classes. Your very article makes a point that expanding the people who get taxed can fix the problem.

Expanding the set of taxpayers subject to a tax increase would make it easier to hit any given fiscal target. Balancing the budget only from households making above $250,000 would require a (still impossible) 90 percent top rate, but reducing deficits to 2.2 percent of GDP would require a 60 percent top rate and might be achievable. Expanding the universe to couples above $150,000 would reduce the needed top rate to 56 percent and applying the increase to all tax brackets would require a top rate of 43 percent – only 3½ point higher than today’s top rate.

So the idea of raising taxes on merely the top income earners wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean taxes can't be raised to create a surplus. More than just the top rich people would pay more taxes. That's all.

Raise taxes, cut the military budget in half. That'd be a good start.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes we only need to tax people at 90%. Very reasonable right?