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

a reply to: narrator

Might as well scrap the military at that point, it's falling apart as it is.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Or this.

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.

But yeah. I guess if you only read 1 line of my response to you then I can see how you wouldn't have seen this line.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think we should scrap the military. But, if something is falling apart, don't you think it should be fixed? Playing world police might have been necessary right after WWII, but now it's just a hindrance on the country, and not something we should be doing at all. Fix our country before we "fix" others.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Or this.

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.

But yeah. I guess if you only read 1 line of my response to you then I can see how you wouldn't have seen this line.

No, I read it all.

but reducing deficits to 2.2 percent of GDP would require a 60 percent top rate and might be achievable

That is still a deficit.

a reply to: narrator

It costs money to fix it, the money has not been there, that is why it's falling apart.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes. that line is the line RIGHT before the quoted text I wrote. There are several different suggestions in that paragraph. All but one are likely unfeasible (or not what I'm talking about). The last one is a feasible solution and you are doing everything in your power to ignore it right now.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'd take a different tactic. Rather than continuing to throw money at something that isn't working, figure out the parts of it that we no longer need, and remove those things. Save some money, rather than spend more.

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'd take a different tactic. Rather than continuing to throw money at something that isn't working, figure out the parts of it that we no longer need, and remove those things. Save some money, rather than spend more.

I'll take War for 2000 Alec.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I believe you are simply misunderstanding. I believe that is saying with a 2.2% deficit.

Top Rate Exempting Couples Making Under ~$150k 80%

With everyone making $150k or less exempt the tax rate is 80% for a balanced budget.

Top Rate If All Rates Are Raised by an Equal Amount 49%

So really, we need to raise taxes on EVERYONE to ~50% to balance the budget ... or we need to make serious cuts. I can't afford 80%, or even 50%, can you?

the usa gets the most crap for being the "world police"

so lets cut military to what it would take to defend from any threat

if the world needs a military to keep everything in check i say its time someone else foots the bill

a reply to: markovian

Trump is saying similar things and the Democrats are attacking him for it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In all seriousness, I also want cuts too. However I'd prefer to cut things like private prison funding and MIC (and military spending in general). Also, I'd prefer if we made our social programs more efficient (not more prohibitory as Republicans like to do) so that money isn't as wasted.

My entire point is that if we want a social safety net, we can put the government and taxes together to pay for it. If we put the effort in.

originally posted by: intrepid
I think the world would appreciate that as well.

Yeah, right. History says you're wrong there. The minute something happens, Putin eyeballs a neighbor, barbarians try to take over a cat box, savages storm some third world #hole, or a new dictator starts gassing those who want him out of office, who's the first country not only called by the world to act, but blamed if the end result of the action doesn't fit the world's pigeonholed, myopic expectations?

I'd LOVE to see my nation go silent and deep for a decade, just to watch the rest of the world burn as they cry "Where, oh where is the USA? We didn't think they'd actually leave us when we told them to GTFO!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We need to cut social spending, that may take the form of making things more efficient, but it quite simply will not be done without cutting into programs. Congress will not do it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We need to cut social spending, that may take the form of making things more efficient, but it quite simply will not be done without cutting into programs. Congress will not do it.

Social security is bankrupt and needs to be fixed.

We could stop trying to be the world police; lets leave those dmeocratic socialists countries that are such paradises pay for their own defense.

Stop disatorous regime change policies.

There are many government programs that could be totally scrapped, or overhauled and given far less money.

We could stop sending government money to universities that seek to censor any ideas they disagree with.

The list goes on and on.

a reply to: Grambler

Serious military cuts would still not fix the problem. Then you have to realize military spending goes to American citizens and companies. A lot of it goes back into the economy. And then what's the long term cost of China being stronger than us and dictating to us.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

Serious military cuts would still not fix the problem. Then you have to realize military spending goes to American citizens and companies. A lot of it goes back into the economy. And then what's the long term cost of China being stronger than us and dictating to us.

China has a long long way to go to catchh up. The money could be spent far more inteligently on the military. Regime change wars in syria, libya; bases in countries like Germany, etc, do nothing to help our station in the world.

But yes, the big change needs to be entitlement reform.

And as you mention, no one in either party wants to cut entitlements or the military, so it looks like the problem will grow until it blows up.

a reply to: Grambler

No one party can go it alone, it's a vote killer. And the Democrats are becoming more socialist and want to increase spending, so the Republicans certainly aren't going to try anything. The can will be kicked until it goes over the edge.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
People really need to get off the military budget crap.
The military doesnt have enough money to function at the capacity they are being required to preform.

You want less military spending?
Then give them less mission load.

Except for we are not in charge of said mission load. If we were, we wouldnt have bases the world over and we wouldnt be bombing native peoples in their own lands for #s and giggles, so somebodys uncle in the MIC can make another million.

We absolutely need to continue commenting on the unwarranted military budget. Bring as much light to it as possible, as a big part of their missions are simply NOT necesarry.

They dont actually help anybody. You know, like healthcare and welfare benefits actually do help millions of our own right here at home.


That inflated budget exists so that billions can dissapear in 'R&D' and nobody is supposed to bat an eye because 'muh murican freedom!!!'

a reply to: Grambler

Agree with your take on SS, but you can't just scrap it.

As to the other programs out there, most would call them mice nuts in the grand scheme of things. Large corporations would call it rounding errors.

If you look at our spending by %

Social Security : ~ 33%
Medicare : ~ 27%
Defense: ~ 16%
Interest on Debt: ~6%

As far as the 80/20 rule goes that takes you over 80%. The rest of the programs combined make up the additional 20% of our spending. Only way you can reduce spending is to focus on the big rocks. Not to say any of those programs can't be targeted, but in the grand scheme of things they are rounding errors.