The US is on an "unsustainable" fiscal track, so how do we fix it? (Poll)

[IM2]

The US government has almost 250 years of entrenched establishment corruption built into the system and the time to start fixing the problems of a corrupt government is not now, but probably over 100 years ago. An analogy would be the arrival of stage 4 lung cancer and the patient then decides to quit smoking. Trump can try to get the ball rolling, but the entrenched establishment will make sure he won't succeed.

Trump is a cigarette being smoked while trying to end lung cancer.

 

[IM2]

First we need to elect a president that isn't brain addled or still a child.

You better take a real good look at what Biden did instead of repeating narratives.

 

[IM2]

Back to the states for most but oversight by the Feds by qualified inspectors. Increase funding by the Feds when needed.

Some things need to stay federal. State discretion has proven to be poor.

 

[pknopp]

You better take a real good look at what Biden did instead of repeating narratididn't.

He beat Medicare.

 

[IM2]

He beat Medicare.

He did more than that.

 

[Dorian Mode]

Trump is a cigarette being smoked while trying to end lung cancer.

The myriad problems in America have been there long before Trump was born. Trump is certainly not the cause of all, or any of, the problems in the country. I bet you think he killed the dinosaurs too.

 

[IM2]

We have at least one republican here who doesn't seem to understand that racism creates losses in GDP and income. In this person's view, denying jobs and equal pay doesn't result in losses. That loss of taxable income ends up shorting the revenues taken in by the government. In many cases, the denial of jobs and equal pay results in people who get government assistance, thereby taking tax money instead of contributing revenue. It is amazing how some people think. Of course, when you practice racism and don't suffer from it, it's easy not to believe it causes harm because to those people, racism is just a slur, not a systemic problem.

 

[Mac1958]

We have to streamline the cost of government (with intelligence and care, not with a fucking chainsaw), we have to fix our health care system, we have to tweak Social Security, and we have to increase personal income taxes on the top end.

It's not either/or, was much as the partisans on both ends want it to be.

It's all of the above. Anything less is bullshit. We either wake up to that or we don't. We're either serious or we're not.

 

[IM2]

The myriad problems in America have been there long before Trump was born. Trump is certainly not the cause of all, or any of, the problems in the country. I bet you think he killed the dinosaurs too.

You are the one saying Trump is starting to fix the problem. Trump is the problem, and yes, Trump is the ultimate manifestation of 249 years of white racism as well as the backlash against modern America by those who want to maintain white male preferences.

 

[dblack]

We either wake up to that or we don't. We're either serious or we're not.

The smart money's on "not".

 

[kyzr]

Didn't vote. I would vote yes, except the gov will just take the money and squander elsewhere. No accountability.

That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to avoid, and the Freedom Caucus is the last chance we have.
If they can't close the deficit we're toast.

 

[Dorian Mode]

You are the one saying Trump is starting to fix the problem. Trump is the problem, and yes, Trump is the ultimate manifestation of 249 years of white racism as well as the backlash against modern America by those who want to maintain white male preferences.

Trump is the only politician today who ever tried to fix the government's problems. He might not be the perfect guy to do it, but he is the only guy over the last 60 years willing to try. As for your fixation on racism, all I can say is one has to choose to be a victim of racism or a winner. Winners don't fixate on racism, they overcome it.

 

[IM2]

We don't have to tweak social security. It is money we pay in. It's funny how so called nonpartisans think. Every time democrats have proposed cutting out loopholes for the rich in regards to taxes, they get called Marxists, communists and socialists. We need to start looking at the government as a business, a not-for-profit business that provides services. Doing this allows us to be sane about things because as the clients for a non-profit increases, that nonprofit expands. We have people here wanting to reduce the government to the size it was in 1787, and that will not work.

 

[kyzr]

There are several benefits to eliminating tax expenditures.
1. The wealthy benefit the most from them. The legislative field is tilted in their favor such that the wealth of the middle and lower classes rolls into their pockets.
For example, the Mortgage Interest Deduction increases the cost of houses by up to 27 percent.
Who benefits from higher home prices?
Mortgage brokers get a commission based on home prices, bankers who lend that higher amount get more interest payments.
That's why the home builders and realtors pay over a hundred million dollars a year for lobbyists.
2. The elimination of tax expenditures will lower the cost of many high dollar items, such as houses in the example above.
3. We currently have an insane system where two people earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes. Eliminating tax expenditures will remove that disparity.
4. Tax expenditures are socialism. They really are. They are a redistribution of wealth and they are the worst kind of government intervention in the free market.
If I take a deduction, someone else has to pay more tax to compensate for my deduction. This is done by raising tax rates.
In short, deductions, exemptions, and credits are robbery.
4. Tax expenditures are government social engineering.
You are punished with higher taxes for not breeding.
You are punished with higher taxes for not having a mortgage.
You are punished with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of refrigerator (and you know someone paid a bribe for that deduction to be put in the tax code).
It was no great leap for Obama to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance. This is the door tax expenditures opened.
5. Finally, if a politician is not allowed to put a tax expenditure in the tax code, then the oligarchs have no incentive to pay the bribe.
Presto! Instant campaign finance reform! Tax expenditures are as anti-conservative as it gets.
Of course they can't. They are owned by the top 10 percent.

You proved it is a good idea, but you also proved that neither party would ever support doing it, but at least you found ONE topic we agree on.

 

[Man With A Plan]

We have at least one republican here who doesn't seem to understand that racism creates losses in GDP and income. In this person's view, denying jobs and equal pay doesn't result in losses. That loss of taxable income ends up shorting the revenues taken in by the government. In many cases, the denial of jobs and equal pay results in people who get government assistance, thereby taking tax money instead of contributing revenue. It is amazing how some people think. Of course, when you practice racism and don't suffer from it, it's easy not to believe it causes harm because to those people, racism is just a slur, not a systemic problem.

That may be the dumbest thing you've ever posted here, IM2 and that's saying something!

If I deny a job to one person and give it to another person how does that result in a loss of taxable income? You have the same number of people working...the same number of people paying taxes. Are you really this dense?

 

[Frankenstein]

So how does all that get us back on a balanced budget?

Statesmen who want to do the job for the people, will cut spending, they will cut taxes, and revenue will increase, helping us to pay down the debt

 

[kyzr]

I'd like to have a third choice, like "other" where I'm not required to come up with a solution. The bottom line is we spend way too much money. By transferring some expenses to the states I don't see that as saving any money. While most of them have to live within their means, they would have no option but to either raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of the two. For the most part, I just see them raising taxes and continuing to spend. I can't give a blanket yes or no answer to the question.

DOGE proved that the Federal government has no cost-controls, NONE.
By sending the "social safety net" (or half of it) to the states, they have "skin in the game", they have unemployment offices, they have "development organizations" that can provide input as to job training. They also have community colleges that can provide job training and job guidance.
My main point is, we just cannot keep doing what we are doing now, period, full stop.

 

[Man With A Plan]

We have to streamline the cost of government (with intelligence and care, not with a fucking chainsaw), we have to fix our health care system, we have to tweak Social Security, and we have to increase personal income taxes on the top end.

It's not either/or, was much as the partisans on both ends want it to be.

It's all of the above. Anything less is bullshit. We either wake up to that or we don't. We're either serious or we're not.

I notice you don't tell us how we're going to DO any of those things, Mac!

 

[kyzr]

Statesmen who want to do the job for the people, will cut spending, they will cut taxes, and revenue will increase, helping us to pay down the debt

We heard that from Trump and Mnuchin in 2018 or so when they passed the 1st tax cuts.
They said the tax cuts would bring 5% GDP growth. They lied their asses off.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Income:
1. No more tax cuts.
2. Raise corporate rates to 2.5% of GDP
3. Raise Other back to 1.5% of GDP.

Outflow:
1. Mandatory: Eliminate other mandatory to 1% of GDP. Freeze it.
2. DIscretionary: Cut defense spending to 1.5% GDP. Cut nondefense discretionary to 1.5% GDP. Freeze it.

Wait until it balances.

If thats not enough eliminate SS in 2026. No in, no out.

Who actually pays the corporate tax, dumbass?

You want Russia and China to take over the world?