We already know know Trump can't rein in govt spending, so what plan do the Dems have to lower spending?

[Markle]

Obama had every chance to veto spending just like Trump.

No, the President can only approve or veto the budget as approved by Congress. He does not have line-item veto authority.

When I say he does then you can bring that up.

Oh, cool, you give me permission to bring up FACTS when you say so! Got it!

 

[Markle]

how did they amass so many millions working for us?

One reason is not supposed to be available to them any longer. The Congressman or Representative was legally able to trade on the stock exchange with the information they obtained in meetings or wherever. They could not tell anyone else, that was illegal. Just imagine how well you could do in the stock market.

Decades ago, Harry Reid made millions on a land deal in Las Vegas on property he had not owned for years. I've been a Realtor for over 50 years and I never figured that one out.

 

[Papageorgio]

Repeal all the deductions, write offs, tax credits and you pay a tax on the gross pay. Sounds simple, save tax accountants, tax attorneys. And allow people to figure out what they owe and your employer takes out the tax owed.

Why would anyone own a business, regardless of size?

The challenge and love of the game. I never worried about taxes, the fun was making it successful.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

That ship has sailed. The ONLY thing that will stop our ship of fools and their catastrophic spending is a MAJOR depression.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

No plan at this time. Won't be until we fully reopen and get the economy back. You would think we could cut some spending for God's sake, somewhere. I know Trump asked the Department Secretaries to find cuts of about 15%, but I haven't hear much on it....I'd like to see where we are with that.

 

[Markle]

Repeal all the deductions, write offs, tax credits and you pay a tax on the gross pay. Sounds simple, save tax accountants, tax attorneys. And allow people to figure out what they owe and your employer takes out the tax owed.

Why would anyone own a business, regardless of size?

The challenge and love of the game. I never worried about taxes, the fun was making it successful.

 

[Andylusion]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

No one has a plan, because the American people are unwilling to take the hit.

The bottom line is, entitlements MUST be cut. And they won't be. The moment they try and cut Social Security, or Medicare, the public will have a toddler level temper tantrum, until things get so bad that they have no choice.

We've had two specific chances to tackle this problem, and the public simply doesn't care about math, and facts.... they "feel" like they deserve these things, and therefore they'll vote anyone into office who will tell them what they want to hear, whether it is true or not.

The first chance we had, was Bush in the 2000s. Bush was going to allow privatization of Social Security. This is what Chile does, and this what Singapore does, and it works.

Instead of a Ponzi scheme, where young people pay for old people, until the money runs out and the system implodes, everyone will have their own money, in their own account, with their own investments. Then it doesn't matter if the government runs a deficit or not, because you have your own money in your own account with your name on it.

Bush got rolled on this. People opposed it, and it was shot down.

The second chance was Greece.

Greece had the exact same problem. People warned Greece that their pension system was completely unsustainable. They warned them over and over, there isn't money for all these benefits. They warned them in the 1990s, all the way until the pension system ran out of money, the health care system ran out of money, the mass transit system ran out of money, the education system ran out of money, the government went into default, and nearly the entire country fell into ruins.

That was our warning shot. That was the sign from G-d in the sky, warning people this does not work.

And we didn't learn anything.

So I don't know what exactly is going to happen, but at this point if we had two clear chances to fix the system, then I don't know could possibly happen in the future, that will prevent a future crash. I don't know what will have to happen in this country, to make people wake up and realize that socialism doesn't work because you run out of other people's money.

My guess is, that what will have to happen, is that we will either have a crisis in the bond market, and that will wake people up (a crisis in the bond market means people refuse to lend money to the US government), or we will have insane inflation, that will harm the economy and result in a depression.

And there is a chance that we actually have default. That is still a possibility, where everything tied to government just gets cut, and we'll see retirees outside banks, on the ground crying. We'll see hospitals closed, with patients on the steps outside, like we did in Greece.

That is a real possiblity, but I wager one of the other two things will happen. Who knows. We'll see.

How about we actually collect taxes from people like trump?

Because it doesn't work. It's never worked in all human history. The French tried it.

Millionaires canât seem to flee this European country fast enough

There was a surge in high-net-worth individuals moving country last year.

www.marketwatch.com

The wealth tax in France, resulted in hundreds of thousands leaving France.

New York City loses hundreds of billions in wealth as rich residents skip town

Many rich residents fled to the suburbs or vacation homes to escape the densely-populated city.

www.foxbusiness.com

Wealthy are leaving NYC.

Wealthy buyers reportedly in 'mad rush' to leave San Francisco

Amid the depths of a global pandemic and financial downturn, the demand for real estate...

www.sfgate.com

Wealthy are leaving California.

Where the rich Venezuelans fled to after crisis

In the wake of Venezuela’s economic crisis, millions of people are fleeing.

www.news.com.au

Rich left Venezuela.

And I could list thousands of other examples. Why did Apple open a major branch in Ireland? Because at the time the US corporate tax rate was 35%, and Ireland's was 12.5%. So they moved operations there instead of elsewhere.

The idea of making other people pay for what you want.... has never worked in all human history.

Name one country with massive welfare programs, that does not tax the poor and middle class to pay for it?

Seriously, if your system worked, why has not a single country done it? Why are the poor and middle class of Denmark paying 40% to 60% of their income in taxes? Why didn't they just make all the super rich in Denmark, like Lars Larsen the muilti-billionaire retail store businessman, pay for everything? Why are people flipping burgers paying 40% of their income in taxes in Denmark?

Because your system doesn't work. Never has. Never. Not one time. Every single dollar that is paid out in government benefits, at some point come from the employees.

Just like how they say "employer side tax", is not paid by employers. It's paid by employees. Employers simply pay employees less in wages, to pay the "employer side tax". Employees pay the taxes. No the rich.

The rich will never pay more in tax. If the tax rate is too high, they hide their money.

View attachment 396130

One of the most well known graphs in economics. The amount of money collected, verses the marginal tax rates.

Notice a pattern there? When they jacked up the taxes on the rich, the amount of actual money collected was never significantly higher, than when the rates were lower.

Your system doesn't work. If there is any conclusive, undeniable fact, in economics... it is that your system of "Make others pay for it" does not work. Never has. Never will.

If you want more and more social programs, and social spending, you will have to drastically increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Trying to get it from the rich, just won't work. We've tried that throughout the world, for a hundred years. Doesn't work.

Worked fine for us when we did it. Works fine in Scandinavia. People like Trump shouldn’t be paying 0 or almost nothing.

Are blind, or willfully ignorant? I just posted the facts about high tax rates in the US, and how the rich didn't pay them, and provided clear undeniable proof of this... and then you like Rain Man looking for Judge Wapner, started saying it worked, when confronted with incontestable proof it didn't.

I'm not even sure how to even reply to someone that is engaging in the mental equivalent of saying one plus one is eleven.


It doesn't work in Scandinavia. Not at all. The poorest people there, pay almost half their income in taxes. The rich are not paying pay for the benefits of others.

People in Scandinavia get back nearly everything the put in. Meaning the rich get back large amounts of social services, and the poor get back small amounts of social services.



At 1:25 in this video, this economist from Sweden points out there there is no wealth redistribution. That money is not taxed from the rich, to pay for the welfare of the poor.

The lower and middle class pays 40% of their income to the government. The lowest income people, pay very high taxes, to fund all of their social programs. If you are poor, the pension you get, and education you get, and the health care you get, are all paid for by your own income. Your hard work. Because you lose 40% of your income to the government.

Now, you don't have to pay for health care, and that's plus.... right?

Swedes face problems with health care system

ASIA Nader did not know whether to worry more about being diagnosed with a hole in her heart at the age of 21, or having to wait a year for Swedish doctors to fix it. Read more at The Business Times.

www.businesstimes.com.sg

Granted you might have to suffer two full years, with an agonizing hole in your heart.... but it won't cost you any money to suffer for years.

However it will cost you 40% of your income, and you might be riding a bike to work in the rain and winter, because you can't afford one. But it's free health care.

(Swedes own about half as many cars per-capita than the US.)

Swedes riding bikes to work in snow storms. Cars are expensive, when you lose 40% to 60% of your income in taxes. But just remember, when you smash your bike in the snow, the split on your arm will be free of charge.

Back to the point though. As I said before, the rich don't pay for the welfare of the poor. Doesn't happen. Didn't happen in the US, and doesn't happen in Scandinavia, and has happened anywhere else, ever.

 

[Andylusion]

The first chance we had, was Bush in the 2000s. Bush was going to allow privatization of Social Security. This is what Chile does, and this what Singapore does, and it works.

Instead of a Ponzi scheme, where young people pay for old people, until the money runs out and the system implodes, everyone will have their own money, in their own account, with their own investments. Then it doesn't matter if the government runs a deficit or not, because you have your own money in your own account with your name on it.

A minor correction, President Bush was not going to privatize Social Security. That was a popular misconception used by the opponents. His proposal was to allow citizens to VOLUNTARILY invest 5% of what they pay into Social Security into a personal retirement account. It was a step in the right direction.

Galveston Texas and two or three surrounding counties joined together and opted out of Social Security during a brief window when that was possible. Their plan is head and shoulders above Social Security in every way possible.

You are 100% correct about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme. It didn't start out that way but it is now the biggest Ponzi Scheme the world has ever seen.

Yes, what you said is true about Bush's policy. I wasn't being too specific, but yes, that is correct.

That said, minor correction on Social Security didn't start out that way.

No, it was always that way. There was never a time where it had a trust fund, or investments, or private accounts, or anything. From the very very very very very very start.... how it is today, is how it was designed.

In fact, if you want to dig into the history, FDR himself (his administration) argued that Social Security was, what it is today.

He argued that in court.

When Social Security was first created, people brought a court case against Social Security, saying that the government has no constitutional authority to create a pension system. There is no place in the constitution that says the Federal government has the legal constitutional authority to create a pension that has compelled enrollment.

Which by the way, is absolutely true. There is no power of the Federal Government, in the constitution, for Social Security.

So how did FDR argue that Social Security was legal?

His argument before the supreme court, was that Social Security is NOT a pension system. It is not individual investments, for retirement. It is not a pension fund with assets.

Social Security in 1937, was the same as it is today.... it is a tax on income..... and a welfare program. That's it.

And that is how it has always been. The money that is taxed out of people's pay checks, is given to the federal government, like any other tax. Like the estate tax. Like the corporate income tax. Like the Medicare tax. Like import tariff taxes. Like all other Federal taxes, your social security goes to the same IRS, and is spent by the Federal government.

Similarly, Social Security benefits, are like any other benefits. Like welfare, food stamps, like green energy subsidies, like military spending, like section 8 housing for pot heads...... Social Security is an expense like any other.

Social Security has NEVER operated any differently than it does today. Working people... pay for non-working people. That's it.

 

[pknopp]

Obama had every chance to veto spending just like Trump.

No, the President can only approve or veto the budget as approved by Congress. He does not have line-item veto authority.

When I say he does then you can bring that up.

Oh, cool, you give me permission to bring up FACTS when you say so! Got it!

You can try and change my statement any time you want. All it does though is cede the point.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

basically the Democrats are looters

 

[JWBooth]

so what plan do the Dems have to lower spending?
The notion that the dims have any concerns about reversing runaway spending is only slightly more absurd than thinking the GOPers actually worry about it.

 

[JWBooth]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

basically the Democrats are looters

They all are, it is delusional to think otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

That depends on what is meant by ‘spending.’

Defense and Social Security/Medicare make up a bulk of the spending; the nation’s infrastructure is in bad shape which will cost billions to address; there are necessary, proper regulatory and administrative requirements that must be funded, necessary and proper social services requiring funding – being a first world, industrialized superpower costs money, can’t be done on the cheap.

So without an understanding as to what constitutes ‘curbing’ Federal spending, no response can be made to the thread premise.

 

[my2¢]

The only hope we have for fiscal responsibility is the President being a Democrat with the House controlled by Republicans.

 

[my2¢]

Defense and Social Security/Medicare make up a bulk of the spending

True but totally eliminating Social Security spending wouldn't save a dime if the Social Security payroll tax wasn't retained.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I curious to know this because despite COVID 19 federal spending must still be curbed and fiscally responsible.

There is no plan from the Democrats . There is no plan from any quarter. We may have to sell off Yellowstone to get close to balancing the books.

The current Republicans are not fiscally responsible. The last president to balance the budget was Bill Clinton, every since then the deficit has increased and not president, not even Bush or Obama, has balanced the budget.

Actually, the notion of ‘balancing’ the Federal budget is naïve.

Indeed, it’s perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to have a deficit, particularly now during a recession.

So the issue isn’t a ‘balanced’ budget or a deficit per se, but the size of a deficit and how long it will last.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Defense and Social Security/Medicare make up a bulk of the spending

True but totally eliminating Social Security spending wouldn't save a dime if the Social Security payroll tax wasn't retained.

Eliminating Social Security/Medicare would also be reckless, irresponsible, and completely unwarranted – and thankfully so.

 

[JWBooth]

Maybe Romney should have ran for President and challenged Trump, he can balance a budget

That’s some funny shit right there.