Matt Gaetz explains to Fox new some basic facts

[SaxonJackson]

I trust him when there's a democrat in the White House. When Trumps in office, not so much.. Gaetz voting record on spending sucked between 2017 and 2021.

I should amend my earlier statement to say I trust him as much as I can trust a politician. If I had it my way, I'd live somewhere where there is no government or politicians. I'd be my own boss.

 

[Godboy]

Trump only vetoed one of Pelosi's spending bills. So yeah, they're Trumps. The one he vetoed, he did because he said it didn't spend enough. So then there's that.

So you think Trump should have shut down the government instead of singing their bill? Shut up you dishonest fool.

 

[Couchpotato]

Trump only vetoed one of Pelosi's spending bills. So yeah, they're Trumps. The one he vetoed, he did because he said it didn't spend enough. So then there's that.

Id have to go back and look but what was the vote in the Senate on those bills? If it was a veto proof vote (and many of the spending bills are) what would be the point of vetoing it? I'm not saying Trump wanted to veto them but if the votes existed to override the veto what would be the point?

 

[Hum Dinger]

No, you are wrong.

The answer is not to increase taxes. The answer is for the government to spend less money. That is the only sane thing to do.

The Federal government takes in a little over $5 trillion a year but yet spends almost $7 trillion a year.

$5 trillion a year is more than the GDP of all but about 3 or 4 countries on the face of the earth. That is in additon to another $5-6 trillion spent by State and Locals.

Besides, if you would take every cent of the "rich" people in the US that wouldn't even be enough to fund the filthy ass bloated government for more than a few months.

No, you are wrong.

Every item in the Federal Budget has been fought for by some Congress person...and they are not going to give it up. Every dollar that gets cut is one less dollar they bring home to their election districts.

In theory 'Spending Cuts' sound really good, but the reality is that they will never happen to any significant degree.

If they did cut spending, who gets to decide what stays and what gets cut? Everything the Republicans want stays, and everything the Democrats want gets cut? If that happened, then you'd better expect that AOC will solely write the entire budget the next time the Dems control congress.

Or is it you, and only you that has the Devine wisdom to write the budget?

BTW - You're also wrong about the wealthy being able to pay down the deficit. Of course I'm including large corporations in with the wealthy. The money is out there - somebody has it - and it ain't American workers.

We should start by raising the capital gains tax back to where it was before GW Bush.

 

[Hum Dinger]

You have been shown 1000X how that won't work. You have been challenged to find $2T in new FED revenue (WITHOUT tanking the GDP). But you ran off to post TDS. You stupid people own all of this destruction of the Country since ~2007. You own about $20T debt too.

Sorry to contradict your delusions, but high taxes on the wealthy have worked before and they'll work again.

 

[leftwinger]

Sorry to contradict your delusions, but high taxes on the wealthy have worked before and they'll work again.

The MAX they have ever been able to Confiscate is about 20% of GDP. Try to take more and the GDP drops....revenue drops. 100 year charts show this. I have posted it. Including during the famous "90% rate" on the rich you idiots crow about.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The MAX they have ever been able to Confiscate is about 20% of GDP. Try to take more and the GDP drops....revenue drops. 100 year charts show this. I have posted it. Including during the famous "90% rate" on the rich you idiots crow about.

By increasing the taxes on the wealthy & corporations, while lowering taxes on working Americans, the economy will be stable. The 90% rate hurts no one. Very few people would have to pay it, and of the people that would have to pay it, it only effects a small portion of their income.

 

[YoursTruly]

Id have to go back and look but what was the vote in the Senate on those bills? If it was a veto proof vote (and many of the spending bills are) what would be the point of vetoing it? I'm not saying Trump wanted to veto them but if the votes existed to override the veto what would be the point?

Spin & dodge. Trump vetoed on spending bill in his entire 4 years. It doesn't matter the circumstances.

No, you are wrong.

Every item in the Federal Budget has been fought for by some Congress person...and they are not going to give it up. Every dollar that gets cut is one less dollar they bring home to their election districts.

Funding a gay parade in Progue, gender studies in Afghanistan and Pakistan or funding a political opposition opponent in Bulgaria isn't sending money back to their districts.

In theory 'Spending Cuts' sound really good, but the reality is that they will never happen to any significant degree.

This is why they're trying to expose this and put an end to it. It will never happen as long as there's not enough people trying to stop it.

If they did cut spending, who gets to decide what stays and what gets cut? Everything the Republicans want stays, and everything the Democrats want gets cut? If that happened, then you'd better expect that AOC will solely write the entire budget the next time the Dems control congress.

Or is it you, and only you that has the Devine wisdom to write the budget?

BTW - You're also wrong about the wealthy being able to pay down the deficit. Of course I'm including large corporations in with the wealthy. The money is out there - somebody has it - and it ain't American workers.

We should start by raising the capital gains tax back to where it was before GW Bush.

The budgets get written, and per our democratic system, get's debated on then voted up or down by all members of the House, Senate and then the President. When you have too many politicians who don't care how much is being spent, then we end up with a $33 trillion debt and a $2 trillion deficit.

The consequences of that is an overinflated USD value that hurts our economy much MUCH worse than the spending cuts or even a shutdown.

 

[YoursTruly]

By increasing the taxes on the wealthy & corporations, while lowering taxes on working Americans, the economy will be stable. The 90% rate hurts no one. Very few people would have to pay it, and of the people that would have to pay it, it only effects a small portion of their income.

That's insane. If the rich give the government more money, they're not going to cut taxes for middle class one cent. Not one. They're just going to spend the extra money on some other BS.
And right now, there's a deficit, so the only "extra" money is coming from the Federal Reserve. Which is borrowed with interest.
Essentially, the US government is running on a credit card. I don't know how you run your personal budget, but 99.99999% of the time, that leads to bankruptcy.

 

[Couchpotato]

Spin & dodge. Trump vetoed on spending bill in his entire 4 years. It doesn't matter the circumstances.

Understanding how the politics work isn't spin or a dodge. Which bills specifically are you talking about that you think Trump should have vetoed?

 

[YoursTruly]

Understanding how the politics work isn't spin or a dodge. Which bills specifically are you talking about that you think Trump should have vetoed?

I understand how politics works. That's why I'm against the way "politics works." Understand something doesn't mean you have to agree with it. And why TF not support those who are trying to fix it.

Example: Paul Ryan and Pelosi are both guilty of this. Both would not allow amendments to be introduced and voted on the House floor, with out being approved in a committee first. McCarthy is carrying on the same tradition.
Because lobbyist are the ones who foot the bill for those committee seats (up to $1.5 million per year, per seat), this is where those Amendments go to get lobbyist approval. Otherwise those committee members would have to pay for those seats themselves.
Committees are where a huge amount of this BS funding comes to light. If Amendments didn't have to go through committee's, we'd be allowed to see and here who exactly is putting most of this BS funding into these bills. Because a bills starts out as one issue. And turns into a monster from back door amendments and deals. They get slipped in without even be addressed on camera.

Trump should've vetoed every single one of them that had BS funding built into it. The bill that contained the gender study money for Pakistan. The funding for the Bulgarian politician. Crap like that. Every one of those spending bills, unless it strictly pertained to something that benefitted most of the American people. You know, the ones who's having to pay for it all.

 

[Couchpotato]

I understand how politics works. That's why I'm against the way "politics works." Understand something doesn't mean you have to agree with it. And why TF not support those who are trying to fix it.

Example: Paul Ryan and Pelosi are both guilty of this. Both would not allow amendments to be introduced and voted on the House floor, with out being approved in a committee first. McCarthy is carrying on the same tradition.
Because lobbyist are the ones who foot the bill for those committee seats (up to $1.5 million per year, per seat), this is where those Amendments go to get lobbyist approval. Otherwise those committee members would have to pay for those seats themselves.
Committees are where a huge amount of this BS funding comes to light. If Amendments didn't have to go through committee's, we'd be allowed to see and here who exactly is putting most of this BS funding into these bills. Because a bills starts out as one issue. And turns into a monster from back door amendments and deals. They get slipped in without even be addressed on camera.

Trump should've vetoed every single one of them that had BS funding built into it. The bill that contained the gender study money for Pakistan. The funding for the Bulgarian politician. Crap like that. Every one of those spending bills, unless it strictly pertained to something that benefitted most of the American people. You know, the ones who's having to pay for it all.

To what end? So he could be overridden? How does that accomplish anything? The reason bills that have veto proof support don't get vetoed by Presidents is because there's nothing to gain by doing it. You just look weak and stupid. Link up the bills you think he should have vetoed. Just saying all the spending bills that have BS funding is like saying all the days of the week that end in y.

 

[otto105]

I understand how politics works. That's why I'm against the way "politics works." Understand something doesn't mean you have to agree with it. And why TF not support those who are trying to fix it.

Example: Paul Ryan and Pelosi are both guilty of this. Both would not allow amendments to be introduced and voted on the House floor, with out being approved in a committee first. McCarthy is carrying on the same tradition.
Because lobbyist are the ones who foot the bill for those committee seats (up to $1.5 million per year, per seat), this is where those Amendments go to get lobbyist approval. Otherwise those committee members would have to pay for those seats themselves.
Committees are where a huge amount of this BS funding comes to light. If Amendments didn't have to go through committee's, we'd be allowed to see and here who exactly is putting most of this BS funding into these bills. Because a bills starts out as one issue. And turns into a monster from back door amendments and deals. They get slipped in without even be addressed on camera.

Trump should've vetoed every single one of them that had BS funding built into it. The bill that contained the gender study money for Pakistan. The funding for the Bulgarian politician. Crap like that. Every one of those spending bills, unless it strictly pertained to something that benefitted most of the American people. You know, the ones who's having to pay for it all.

So, you really don’t know how politics works.

Very clear.


Maybe in your next life you take education seriously.

 

[YoursTruly]

To what end? So he could be overridden? How does that accomplish anything? The reason bills that have veto proof support don't get vetoed by Presidents is because there's nothing to gain by doing it. You just look weak and stupid. Link up the bills you think he should have vetoed. Just saying all the spending bills that have BS funding is like saying all the days of the week that end in y.

If his veto get's overridden, then it's on those who over rode it. Not the one who vetoed it. That is what a president gains by not signing a bad bill. Because signing a bill into law means you agreed to it.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That's insane. If the rich give the government more money, they're not going to cut taxes for middle class one cent. Not one. They're just going to spend the extra money on some other BS.
And right now, there's a deficit, so the only "extra" money is coming from the Federal Reserve. Which is borrowed with interest.
Essentially, the US government is running on a credit card. I don't know how you run your personal budget, but 99.99999% of the time, that leads to bankruptcy.

How people run their personal finances have NOTHING in common with the U.S. governments finances.

The U.S. Government can create money, you can not (actually you can as long as it doesn't appear to be U.S. Currency).

If the U.S. Government debt was as devastating as people claim, we'd already be in an economic disaster. If $33T isn't enough to sink us, why would any amount matter?

The fact is that what money really is the "Authority to Activate Resources". When the U.S. Government spends massive amounts, it is actually activating economic resources. Those resources create wealth thru productivity. That wealth creates real value to the money that the Government spends. The entire economy benefits.

The banks basically do the same. They create money out of thin air - which they distribute as loans. That money activates resources, which creates real wealth.

As long as the banks make good loans, they get the money paid back with interest, only when it gets returned to them, that money represents real tangible wealth.

The problem with the Federal Budget is that only a portion is returned back to the Government thru tax revenues. The rest floats in the economy and causes inflation when there's too much.

Unfortunately, due to our trickle up economy, and devastating wealth disparity, almost all money goes to the wealthiest 0.1% eventually. They may reinvest it or horde it. They may also invest it in foreign countries like China - which is why China has seen 200+ years of economic growth in the past 30 years, while the American manufacturing has declined dramatically.

The problem is that, unlike banks, the money is never returned to the government. The only way to balance the budget while keeping the economy running is to tax the wealthy.

 

[YoursTruly]

How people run their personal finances have NOTHING in common with the U.S. governments finances.

DING DING DING DING.... Now you're catching on. Math is absolute.

The U.S. Government can create money, you can not (actually you can as long as it doesn't appear to be U.S. Currency).

If the U.S. Government debt was as devastating as people claim, we'd already be in an economic disaster. If $33T isn't enough to sink us, why would any amount matter?

It is devastating. This is what the left and the RINO's don't get. $15hr is a poverty wage. That's devastating because companies have to pay that much and still compete with countries like China and Mexico, who can pay their employees $20 per day. And guess what. In Mexico or China, $20 per day isn't a poverty wage. In fact the minimum wage in Mexico is like $11.75 per day. << Per DAY, not per hour.

The fact is that what money really is the "Authority to Activate Resources". When the U.S. Government spends massive amounts, it is actually activating economic resources. Those resources create wealth thru productivity. That wealth creates real value to the money that the Government spends. The entire economy benefits.

Inflation is simply too much money in the economy. Period. End of story. The more you have of anything, the less it's going to be worth.
So Trump's $8 trillion & Biden's $5 trillion only made inflation high. And devalued existing currency.

The banks basically do the same. They create money out of thin air - which they distribute as loans. That money activates resources, which creates real wealth.

As long as the banks make good loans, they get the money paid back with interest, only when it gets returned to them, that money represents real tangible wealth.

In the governments case, the interest alone is astronomical. This is what a family looks like when they're living off of credit cards. Even low interest credit cards is taking money out of their pockets and keeping them from ever seeing daylight.
The money the government is borrowing isn't generating a profit. If it did, we'd be $33 trillion to the black.

The problem with the Federal Budget is that only a portion is returned back to the Government thru tax revenues. The rest floats in the economy and causes inflation when there's too much.

Unfortunately, due to our trickle up economy, and devastating wealth disparity, almost all money goes to the wealthiest 0.1% eventually. They may reinvest it or horde it. They may also invest it in foreign countries like China - which is why China has seen 200+ years of economic growth in the past 30 years, while the American manufacturing has declined dramatically.

The problem is that, unlike banks, the money is never returned to the government. The only way to balance the budget while keeping the economy running is to tax the wealthy.

The upper class money is in banks. Which you just admitted goes to loans for other people & companies. Like oil companies for example. They don't use their own money to start a new project, say like an oil lease or buying a huge swaths of land to develop. They borrow it. But they're a business. And they'll be able to make money from their loan. The government, not so much.
This is one of things that appealed to the retarded Trump supporters. He made out like he was going to run the government like a business. And the government was going to start making money. But he failed to address a few things.

1. The over inflated USD value.
2. The debt being unsurmountable with the governments deficit.

If the USD value is unable to match the Yuan or the Peso in actual value, then there's no way American companies are ever going to be able to compete on the global stage, without forced trade deals. As we speak, BRICS is increasing in popularity. And within a decade or so, we're going to be begging countries to do business with us. And they're going to turn us down because it'll simply cost too much to buy American products.
It's already too much for many Americans. This is why we have such a huge trade deficit with China right now. It's why we don't make TV's, cell phones, or a 1,000 other products. It's why we're not the manufacturing giant we were in the 40's all the way up to the 70's.

 

[YoursTruly]

So, you really don’t know how politics works.

Very clear.


Maybe in your next life you take education seriously.

You take a jab, instead of proving me wrong.

You lose. I win.

 

[Couchpotato]

How people run their personal finances have NOTHING in common with the U.S. governments finances.

The U.S. Government can create money, you can not (actually you can as long as it doesn't appear to be U.S. Currency).

If the U.S. Government debt was as devastating as people claim, we'd already be in an economic disaster. If $33T isn't enough to sink us, why would any amount matter?

The fact is that what money really is the "Authority to Activate Resources". When the U.S. Government spends massive amounts, it is actually activating economic resources. Those resources create wealth thru productivity. That wealth creates real value to the money that the Government spends. The entire economy benefits.

The banks basically do the same. They create money out of thin air - which they distribute as loans. That money activates resources, which creates real wealth.

As long as the banks make good loans, they get the money paid back with interest, only when it gets returned to them, that money represents real tangible wealth.

The problem with the Federal Budget is that only a portion is returned back to the Government thru tax revenues. The rest floats in the economy and causes inflation when there's too much.

Unfortunately, due to our trickle up economy, and devastating wealth disparity, almost all money goes to the wealthiest 0.1% eventually. They may reinvest it or horde it. They may also invest it in foreign countries like China - which is why China has seen 200+ years of economic growth in the past 30 years, while the American manufacturing has declined dramatically.

The problem is that, unlike banks, the money is never returned to the government. The only way to balance the budget while keeping the economy running is to tax the wealthy.

If any of that were actually true why does the Government ever "borrow money"? Why not just print the amount they need? Im pretty sure the foreign governments we have borrowed money from expect to get paid back. They think it's an actual debt.

 

[Couchpotato]

If his veto get's overridden, then it's on those who over rode it. Not the one who vetoed it. That is what a president gains by not signing a bad bill. Because signing a bill into law means you agreed to it.

That's not how the politics work. Presidents who's veto is overridden are on the losing end of that transaction every time.

 

[YoursTruly]

That's not how the politics work. Presidents who's veto is overridden are on the losing end of that transaction every time.

Sure, the bill still gets turned into law. But in the defense of any president, it didn't get turned into a law because of him.
That's the thing. Signing a bad bill just to avoid an override is retarded. It's not even a good excuse.