Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[dblack]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" is actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make in stating that "fact"?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They claim that there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And when they do, I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

 

[dblack]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

Clinton didn't "deregulate" anything. Politicians almost never do that. They re-regulate, tweaking current regulations to punish their enemies and reward their supporters. That's all that ever happens. And tweaking those regulations usually disrupts markets and causes more problems.

 

[Dana7360]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

The reason why debt increases with deficits is because that deficit is added to the debt every year.

That is the amount of money we have to borrow to pay for all the spending.

That is accounting and economics 101.

 

[jc456]

One thing is for certain. Every time we cut taxes, deficits increase drastically.

you still don't get it. And, it proves that tax cuts create more revenue. See congress sees more money and increases spending. Son, you can't win this debate. the only way to stop a deficit or debt is to stop spending more than one has in revenue. It's quite simple. Must be why you don't get it.

Trump tax cuts caused us to lose more than any other developed country in 2018.

Tax. Revenue was off the charts! You’re incorrect demofk

From 2017 to 2018, the U.S. tax-to-GDP ratio fell from 26.8% to 24.3%, the OECD found, while corporate tax revenues fell by .7% and personal income tax revenues dropped by .5%.

off the charts going down.

give me your link you used. why didn't you insert that?

 

[dblack]

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

Which people? Not me.

There can't be.

Again, so the fuck what? Should we seek to maximize liberty or not? I just get tired of seeing this as an excuse.

 

[jc456]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

The reason why debt increases with deficits is because that deficit is added to the debt every year.

That is the amount of money we have to borrow to pay for all the spending.

That is accounting and economics 101.

which means stop spending. logic 101

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

Clinton didn't "deregulate" anything. Politicians almost never do that. The re-regulate, tweak current regulations to punish their enemies and reward their supporters. That's all that ever happens. Tweaking those regulations always disrupts markets and causes more problems.

Yes he did.

He ended Glass Steagall Act which established very clear lines between banks, insurance and investment companies and this deregulation allowed the too big to fail scenario to happen.

Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act, part of the Banking Act of 1933, was landmark banking legislation that separated Wall Street from Main Street by offering protection to

www.history.com

 

[Blues Man]

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

Which people? Not me.

There can't be.

Again, so the fuck what? Should we seek to maximize liberty or not? I just get tired of seeing this as an excuse.

So now you are saying you don't want a lawless economic system?

Regulation as always is a balancing act there will always be regulation just accept it

 

[dblack]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

Clinton didn't "deregulate" anything. Politicians almost never do that. The re-regulate, tweak current regulations to punish their enemies and reward their supporters. That's all that ever happens. Tweaking those regulations always disrupts markets and causes more problems.

Yes he did.

He ended Glass Steagall Act which established very clear lines between banks, insurance and investment companies and this deregulation allowed the too big to fail scenario to happen.

Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act, part of the Banking Act of 1933, was landmark banking legislation that separated Wall Street from Main Street by offering protection to

www.history.com

Yes, because the presumption by risk-takers is that the government is still regulating. That's why piecemeal re-regulation like this is so dangerous. The only way to actually deregulate something is to take an entirely hands-off stance - and warn people that they need to look out for themselves, government isn't doing it for them. But we never do that. We repeal a law here and there, tweak the rules to allow some things, but not others. But we leave in place the presumption that government is filing off all the rough edges and eliminating risk. Which just creates more risky behavior.

 

[dblack]

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

Which people? Not me.

There can't be.

Again, so the fuck what? Should we seek to maximize liberty or not? I just get tired of seeing this as an excuse.

So now you are saying you don't want a lawless economic system?

This is essentially just the "there has never been perfect liberty" argument turned around. It's a strawman. Every time someone proposes expanding liberty (in a way you don't like) you accuse them of being anarchist. I never said I wanted a lawless economic system.

 

[Brain357]

One thing is for certain. Every time we cut taxes, deficits increase drastically.

you still don't get it. And, it proves that tax cuts create more revenue. See congress sees more money and increases spending. Son, you can't win this debate. the only way to stop a deficit or debt is to stop spending more than one has in revenue. It's quite simple. Must be why you don't get it.

Trump tax cuts caused us to lose more than any other developed country in 2018.

Tax. Revenue was off the charts! You’re incorrect demofk

You mean revenue growth was hurt badly.

 

[Brain357]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

I don't deal with ifs buts and maybes.

I deal with the facts.

The fact is that increased taxes has never resulted in a spending cut. We have been running deficits for almost 100 years no matter which party was in office. In the big picture it doesn't matter that one guys deficits might have been a little less than another's because it's all cumulative.

You partisans love Clinton but you ignore the fact that the tech bubble is what propped up the economy in his last couple years and he just got lucky that the tech recession happened just a few months after he left office.

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

You are utterly incapable of seeing the big picture because you are unable to see the reality that a president's policies play a role in future economies and don't just stop after the next election.

Let me know if you ever get serious about debt. Right now you are just ignoring facts.

 

[jc456]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

I don't deal with ifs buts and maybes.

I deal with the facts.

The fact is that increased taxes has never resulted in a spending cut. We have been running deficits for almost 100 years no matter which party was in office. In the big picture it doesn't matter that one guys deficits might have been a little less than another's because it's all cumulative.

You partisans love Clinton but you ignore the fact that the tech bubble is what propped up the economy in his last couple years and he just got lucky that the tech recession happened just a few months after he left office.

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

You are utterly incapable of seeing the big picture because you are unable to see the reality that a president's policies play a role in future economies and don't just stop after the next election.

Let me know if you ever get serious about debt. Right now you are just ignoring facts.

still waiting on your facts. why don't you post them? oh, cause you ain't got any.

 

[Brain357]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

The reason why debt increases with deficits is because that deficit is added to the debt every year.

That is the amount of money we have to borrow to pay for all the spending.

That is accounting and economics 101.

which means stop spending. logic 101

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

 

[jc456]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

The reason why debt increases with deficits is because that deficit is added to the debt every year.

That is the amount of money we have to borrow to pay for all the spending.

That is accounting and economics 101.

which means stop spending. logic 101

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

sure why not? we take more than we spend on military. again, revenue is spent. the issue is over spending what one doesn't have. fk dude, stop post such stupid shit you can't defend.

facts

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

Fiscal Year	Individual Income Taxes	Corporate Income Taxes	Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts	Excise Taxes	Other	Total
1934	$ 420.00	$ 364.00	$ 30.00	$ 1,354.00	$ 788.00	$ 2,955.00
1935	$ 527.00	$ 529.00	$ 31.00	$ 1,439.00	$ 1,084.00	$ 3,609.00
1936	$ 674.00	$ 719.00	$ 52.00	$ 1,631.00	$ 847.00	$ 3,923.00
1937	$ 1,092.00	$ 1,038.00	$ 580.00	$ 1,876.00	$ 801.00	$ 5,387.00
1938	$ 1,286.00	$ 1,287.00	$ 1,541.00	$ 1,863.00	$ 773.00	$ 6,751.00
1939	$ 1,029.00	$ 1,127.00	$ 1,593.00	$ 1,871.00	$ 675.00	$ 6,295.00
1940	$ 892.00	$ 1,197.00	$ 1,785.00	$ 1,977.00	$ 698.00	$ 6,548.00
1941	$ 1,314.00	$ 2,124.00	$ 1,940.00	$ 2,552.00	$ 781.00	$ 8,712.00
1942	$ 3,263.00	$ 4,719.00	$ 2,452.00	$ 3,399.00	$ 801.00	$ 14,634.00
1943	$ 6,505.00	$ 9,557.00	$ 3,044.00	$ 4,096.00	$ 800.00	$ 24,001.00
1944	$ 19,705.00	$ 14,838.00	$ 3,473.00	$ 4,759.00	$ 972.00	$ 43,747.00
1945	$ 18,372.00	$ 15,988.00	$ 3,451.00	$ 6,265.00	$ 1,083.00	$ 45,159.00
1946	$ 16,098.00	$ 11,883.00	$ 3,115.00	$ 6,998.00	$ 1,202.00	$ 39,296.00
1947	$ 17,935.00	$ 8,615.00	$ 3,422.00	$ 7,211.00	$ 1,331.00	$ 38,514.00
1948	$ 19,315.00	$ 9,678.00	$ 3,751.00	$ 7,356.00	$ 1,461.00	$ 41,560.00
1949	$ 15,552.00	$ 11,192.00	$ 3,781.00	$ 7,502.00	$ 1,388.00	$ 39,415.00
1950	$ 15,755.00	$ 10,449.00	$ 4,338.00	$ 7,550.00	$ 1,351.00	$ 39,443.00
1951	$ 21,616.00	$ 14,101.00	$ 5,674.00	$ 8,648.00	$ 1,578.00	$ 51,616.00
1952	$ 27,934.00	$ 21,226.00	$ 6,445.00	$ 8,852.00	$ 1,710.00	$ 66,167.00
1953	$ 29,816.00	$ 21,238.00	$ 6,820.00	$ 9,877.00	$ 1,857.00	$ 69,608.00
1954	$ 29,542.00	$ 21,101.00	$ 7,208.00	$ 9,945.00	$ 1,905.00	$ 69,701.00
1955	$ 28,747.00	$ 17,861.00	$ 7,862.00	$ 9,131.00	$ 1,850.00	$ 65,451.00
1956	$ 32,188.00	$ 20,880.00	$ 9,320.00	$ 9,929.00	$ 2,270.00	$ 74,587.00
1957	$ 35,620.00	$ 21,167.00	$ 9,997.00	$ 10,534.00	$ 2,672.00	$ 79,990.00
1958	$ 34,724.00	$ 20,074.00	$ 11,239.00	$ 10,638.00	$ 2,961.00	$ 79,636.00
1959	$ 36,719.00	$ 17,309.00	$ 11,722.00	$ 10,578.00	$ 2,921.00	$ 79,249.00
1960	$ 40,715.00	$ 21,494.00	$ 14,683.00	$ 11,676.00	$ 3,923.00	$ 92,492.00
1961	$ 41,338.00	$ 20,954.00	$ 16,439.00	$ 11,860.00	$ 3,796.00	$ 94,388.00
1962	$ 45,571.00	$ 20,523.00	$ 17,046.00	$ 12,534.00	$ 4,001.00	$ 99,676.00
1963	$ 47,588.00	$ 21,579.00	$ 19,804.00	$ 13,194.00	$ 4,395.00	$ 106,560.00
1964	$ 48,697.00	$ 23,493.00	$ 21,963.00	$ 13,731.00	$ 4,731.00	$ 112,613.00
1965	$ 48,792.00	$ 25,461.00	$ 22,242.00	$ 14,570.00	$ 5,753.00	$ 116,817.00
1966	$ 55,446.00	$ 30,073.00	$ 25,546.00	$ 13,062.00	$ 6,708.00	$ 130,835.00
1967	$ 61,526.00	$ 33,971.00	$ 32,619.00	$ 13,719.00	$ 6,987.00	$ 148,822.00
1968	$ 68,726.00	$ 28,665.00	$ 33,923.00	$ 14,079.00	$ 7,580.00	$ 152,973.00
1969	$ 87,249.00	$ 36,678.00	$ 39,015.00	$ 15,222.00	$ 8,718.00	$ 186,882.00
1970	$ 90,412.00	$ 32,829.00	$ 44,362.00	$ 15,705.00	$ 9,499.00	$ 192,807.00
1971	$ 86,230.00	$ 26,785.00	$ 47,325.00	$ 16,614.00	$ 10,185.00	$ 187,139.00
1972	$ 94,737.00	$ 32,166.00	$ 52,574.00	$ 15,477.00	$ 12,355.00	$ 207,309.00
1973	$ 103,246.00	$ 36,153.00	$ 63,115.00	$ 16,260.00	$ 12,026.00	$ 230,799.00
1974	$ 118,952.00	$ 38,620.00	$ 75,071.00	$ 16,844.00	$ 13,737.00	$ 263,224.00
1975	$ 122,386.00	$ 40,621.00	$ 84,534.00	$ 16,551.00	$ 14,998.00	$ 279,090.00
1976	$ 131,603.00	$ 41,409.00	$ 90,769.00	$ 16,963.00	$ 17,317.00	$ 298,060.00
TQ	$ 38,801.00	$ 8,460.00	$ 25,219.00	$ 4,473.00	$ 4,279.00	$ 81,232.00
1977	$ 157,626.00	$ 54,892.00	$ 106,485.00	$ 17,548.00	$ 19,008.00	$ 355,559.00
1978	$ 180,988.00	$ 59,952.00	$ 120,967.00	$ 18,376.00	$ 19,278.00	$ 399,561.00
1979	$ 217,841.00	$ 65,677.00	$ 138,939.00	$ 18,745.00	$ 22,101.00	$ 463,302.00
1980	$ 244,069.00	$ 64,600.00	$ 157,803.00	$ 24,329.00	$ 26,311.00	$ 517,112.00
1981	$ 285,917.00	$ 61,137.00	$ 182,720.00	$ 40,839.00	$ 28,659.00	$ 599,272.00
1982	$ 297,744.00	$ 49,207.00	$ 201,498.00	$ 36,311.00	$ 33,006.00	$ 617,766.00
1983	$ 288,938.00	$ 37,022.00	$ 208,994.00	$ 35,300.00	$ 30,309.00	$ 600,562.00
1984	$ 298,415.00	$ 56,893.00	$ 239,376.00	$ 37,361.00	$ 34,392.00	$ 666,438.00
1985	$ 334,531.00	$ 61,331.00	$ 265,163.00	$ 35,992.00	$ 37,020.00	$ 734,037.00
1986	$ 348,959.00	$ 63,143.00	$ 283,901.00	$ 32,919.00	$ 40,233.00	$ 769,155.00
1987	$ 392,557.00	$ 83,926.00	$ 303,318.00	$ 32,457.00	$ 42,029.00	$ 854,288.00
1988	$ 401,181.00	$ 94,508.00	$ 334,335.00	$ 35,227.00	$ 43,987.00	$ 909,238.00
1989	$ 445,690.00	$103,291.00	$ 359,416.00	$ 34,386.00	$ 48,321.00	$ 991,105.00
1990	$ 466,884.00	$ 93,507.00	$ 380,047.00	$ 35,345.00	$ 56,174.00	$1,031,958.00
1991	$ 467,827.00	$ 98,086.00	$ 396,016.00	$ 42,402.00	$ 50,657.00	$1,054,988.00
1992	$ 475,964.00	$100,270.00	$ 413,689.00	$ 45,569.00	$ 55,717.00	$1,091,208.00
1993	$ 509,680.00	$117,520.00	$ 428,300.00	$ 48,057.00	$ 50,778.00	$1,154,335.00
1994	$ 543,055.00	$140,385.00	$ 461,475.00	$ 55,225.00	$ 58,427.00	$1,258,566.00
1995	$ 590,244.00	$157,004.00	$ 484,473.00	$ 57,484.00	$ 62,585.00	$1,351,790.00
1996	$ 656,417.00	$171,824.00	$ 509,414.00	$ 54,014.00	$ 61,384.00	$1,453,053.00
1997	$ 737,466.00	$182,293.00	$ 539,371.00	$ 56,924.00	$ 63,178.00	$1,579,232.00
1998	$ 828,586.00	$188,677.00	$ 571,831.00	$ 57,673.00	$ 74,961.00	$1,721,728.00
1999	$ 879,480.00	$184,680.00	$ 611,833.00	$ 70,414.00	$ 81,045.00	$1,827,452.00
2000	$1,004,462.00	$207,289.00	$ 652,852.00	$ 68,865.00	$ 91,723.00	$2,025,191.00
2001	$ 994,339.00	$151,075.00	$ 693,967.00	$ 66,232.00	$ 85,469.00	$1,991,082.00
2002	$ 858,345.00	$148,044.00	$ 700,760.00	$ 66,989.00	$ 78,998.00	$1,853,136.00
2003	$ 793,699.00	$131,778.00	$ 712,978.00	$ 67,524.00	$ 76,335.00	$1,782,314.00
2004	$ 808,959.00	$189,371.00	$ 733,407.00	$ 69,855.00	$ 78,522.00	$1,880,114.00
2005	$ 927,222.00	$278,282.00	$ 794,125.00	$ 73,094.00	$ 80,888.00	$2,153,611.00
2006	$1,043,908.00	$353,915.00	$ 837,821.00	$ 73,961.00	$ 97,264.00	$2,406,869.00
2007	$1,163,472.00	$370,243.00	$ 869,607.00	$ 65,069.00	$ 99,594.00	$2,567,985.00
2008	$1,145,747.00	$304,346.00	$ 900,155.00	$ 67,334.00	$106,409.00	$2,523,991.00
2009	$ 915,308.00	$138,229.00	$ 890,917.00	$ 62,483.00	$ 98,052.00	$2,104,989.00
2010	$ 898,549.00	$191,437.00	$ 864,814.00	$ 66,909.00	$140,997.00	$2,162,706.00
2011	$1,091,473.00	$181,085.00	$ 818,792.00	$ 72,381.00	$139,735.00	$2,303,466.00
2012	$1,132,206.00	$242,289.00	$ 845,314.00	$ 79,061.00	$151,294.00	$2,450,164.00
2013 estimate	$1,234,012.00	$287,716.00	$ 951,093.00	$ 85,346.00	$153,878.00	$2,712,045.00
2014 estimate	$1,383,172.00	$332,819.00	$1,030,655.00	$104,949.00	$182,023.00	$3,033,618.00
2015 estimate	$1,551,774.00	$376,091.00	$1,084,566.00	$113,939.00	$205,315.00	$3,331,685.00
2016 estimate	$1,700,022.00	$401,324.00	$1,160,286.00	$114,806.00	$185,013.00	$3,561,451.00
2017 estimate	$1,843,569.00	$430,148.00	$1,218,321.00	$118,237.00	$150,267.00	$3,760,542.00
2018 estimate	$1,977,142.00	$450,377.00	$1,280,054.00	$125,092.00	$141,309.00	$3,973,974.00

 

[Mac-7]

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

Its a dangerous world out there

but I’m willing to reduce military spending by the same percentage that libs reduce domestic spending

 

[jc456]

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

Its a dangerous world out there

but I’m willing to reduce military spending by the same percentage that libs reduce domestic spending

yep. I even said back in 2017, cut across the board 2%. cut it. live within your means.

 

[Brain357]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

The reason why debt increases with deficits is because that deficit is added to the debt every year.

That is the amount of money we have to borrow to pay for all the spending.

That is accounting and economics 101.

which means stop spending. logic 101

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

sure why not? we take more than we spend on military. again, revenue is spent. the issue is over spending what one doesn't have. fk dude, stop post such stupid shit you can't defend.

facts

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

Fiscal Year	Individual Income Taxes	Corporate Income Taxes	Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts	Excise Taxes	Other	Total
1934	$ 420.00	$ 364.00	$ 30.00	$ 1,354.00	$ 788.00	$ 2,955.00
1935	$ 527.00	$ 529.00	$ 31.00	$ 1,439.00	$ 1,084.00	$ 3,609.00
1936	$ 674.00	$ 719.00	$ 52.00	$ 1,631.00	$ 847.00	$ 3,923.00
1937	$ 1,092.00	$ 1,038.00	$ 580.00	$ 1,876.00	$ 801.00	$ 5,387.00
1938	$ 1,286.00	$ 1,287.00	$ 1,541.00	$ 1,863.00	$ 773.00	$ 6,751.00
1939	$ 1,029.00	$ 1,127.00	$ 1,593.00	$ 1,871.00	$ 675.00	$ 6,295.00
1940	$ 892.00	$ 1,197.00	$ 1,785.00	$ 1,977.00	$ 698.00	$ 6,548.00
1941	$ 1,314.00	$ 2,124.00	$ 1,940.00	$ 2,552.00	$ 781.00	$ 8,712.00
1942	$ 3,263.00	$ 4,719.00	$ 2,452.00	$ 3,399.00	$ 801.00	$ 14,634.00
1943	$ 6,505.00	$ 9,557.00	$ 3,044.00	$ 4,096.00	$ 800.00	$ 24,001.00
1944	$ 19,705.00	$ 14,838.00	$ 3,473.00	$ 4,759.00	$ 972.00	$ 43,747.00
1945	$ 18,372.00	$ 15,988.00	$ 3,451.00	$ 6,265.00	$ 1,083.00	$ 45,159.00
1946	$ 16,098.00	$ 11,883.00	$ 3,115.00	$ 6,998.00	$ 1,202.00	$ 39,296.00
1947	$ 17,935.00	$ 8,615.00	$ 3,422.00	$ 7,211.00	$ 1,331.00	$ 38,514.00
1948	$ 19,315.00	$ 9,678.00	$ 3,751.00	$ 7,356.00	$ 1,461.00	$ 41,560.00
1949	$ 15,552.00	$ 11,192.00	$ 3,781.00	$ 7,502.00	$ 1,388.00	$ 39,415.00
1950	$ 15,755.00	$ 10,449.00	$ 4,338.00	$ 7,550.00	$ 1,351.00	$ 39,443.00
1951	$ 21,616.00	$ 14,101.00	$ 5,674.00	$ 8,648.00	$ 1,578.00	$ 51,616.00
1952	$ 27,934.00	$ 21,226.00	$ 6,445.00	$ 8,852.00	$ 1,710.00	$ 66,167.00
1953	$ 29,816.00	$ 21,238.00	$ 6,820.00	$ 9,877.00	$ 1,857.00	$ 69,608.00
1954	$ 29,542.00	$ 21,101.00	$ 7,208.00	$ 9,945.00	$ 1,905.00	$ 69,701.00
1955	$ 28,747.00	$ 17,861.00	$ 7,862.00	$ 9,131.00	$ 1,850.00	$ 65,451.00
1956	$ 32,188.00	$ 20,880.00	$ 9,320.00	$ 9,929.00	$ 2,270.00	$ 74,587.00
1957	$ 35,620.00	$ 21,167.00	$ 9,997.00	$ 10,534.00	$ 2,672.00	$ 79,990.00
1958	$ 34,724.00	$ 20,074.00	$ 11,239.00	$ 10,638.00	$ 2,961.00	$ 79,636.00
1959	$ 36,719.00	$ 17,309.00	$ 11,722.00	$ 10,578.00	$ 2,921.00	$ 79,249.00
1960	$ 40,715.00	$ 21,494.00	$ 14,683.00	$ 11,676.00	$ 3,923.00	$ 92,492.00
1961	$ 41,338.00	$ 20,954.00	$ 16,439.00	$ 11,860.00	$ 3,796.00	$ 94,388.00
1962	$ 45,571.00	$ 20,523.00	$ 17,046.00	$ 12,534.00	$ 4,001.00	$ 99,676.00
1963	$ 47,588.00	$ 21,579.00	$ 19,804.00	$ 13,194.00	$ 4,395.00	$ 106,560.00
1964	$ 48,697.00	$ 23,493.00	$ 21,963.00	$ 13,731.00	$ 4,731.00	$ 112,613.00
1965	$ 48,792.00	$ 25,461.00	$ 22,242.00	$ 14,570.00	$ 5,753.00	$ 116,817.00
1966	$ 55,446.00	$ 30,073.00	$ 25,546.00	$ 13,062.00	$ 6,708.00	$ 130,835.00
1967	$ 61,526.00	$ 33,971.00	$ 32,619.00	$ 13,719.00	$ 6,987.00	$ 148,822.00
1968	$ 68,726.00	$ 28,665.00	$ 33,923.00	$ 14,079.00	$ 7,580.00	$ 152,973.00
1969	$ 87,249.00	$ 36,678.00	$ 39,015.00	$ 15,222.00	$ 8,718.00	$ 186,882.00
1970	$ 90,412.00	$ 32,829.00	$ 44,362.00	$ 15,705.00	$ 9,499.00	$ 192,807.00
1971	$ 86,230.00	$ 26,785.00	$ 47,325.00	$ 16,614.00	$ 10,185.00	$ 187,139.00
1972	$ 94,737.00	$ 32,166.00	$ 52,574.00	$ 15,477.00	$ 12,355.00	$ 207,309.00
1973	$ 103,246.00	$ 36,153.00	$ 63,115.00	$ 16,260.00	$ 12,026.00	$ 230,799.00
1974	$ 118,952.00	$ 38,620.00	$ 75,071.00	$ 16,844.00	$ 13,737.00	$ 263,224.00
1975	$ 122,386.00	$ 40,621.00	$ 84,534.00	$ 16,551.00	$ 14,998.00	$ 279,090.00
1976	$ 131,603.00	$ 41,409.00	$ 90,769.00	$ 16,963.00	$ 17,317.00	$ 298,060.00
TQ	$ 38,801.00	$ 8,460.00	$ 25,219.00	$ 4,473.00	$ 4,279.00	$ 81,232.00
1977	$ 157,626.00	$ 54,892.00	$ 106,485.00	$ 17,548.00	$ 19,008.00	$ 355,559.00
1978	$ 180,988.00	$ 59,952.00	$ 120,967.00	$ 18,376.00	$ 19,278.00	$ 399,561.00
1979	$ 217,841.00	$ 65,677.00	$ 138,939.00	$ 18,745.00	$ 22,101.00	$ 463,302.00
1980	$ 244,069.00	$ 64,600.00	$ 157,803.00	$ 24,329.00	$ 26,311.00	$ 517,112.00
1981	$ 285,917.00	$ 61,137.00	$ 182,720.00	$ 40,839.00	$ 28,659.00	$ 599,272.00
1982	$ 297,744.00	$ 49,207.00	$ 201,498.00	$ 36,311.00	$ 33,006.00	$ 617,766.00
1983	$ 288,938.00	$ 37,022.00	$ 208,994.00	$ 35,300.00	$ 30,309.00	$ 600,562.00
1984	$ 298,415.00	$ 56,893.00	$ 239,376.00	$ 37,361.00	$ 34,392.00	$ 666,438.00
1985	$ 334,531.00	$ 61,331.00	$ 265,163.00	$ 35,992.00	$ 37,020.00	$ 734,037.00
1986	$ 348,959.00	$ 63,143.00	$ 283,901.00	$ 32,919.00	$ 40,233.00	$ 769,155.00
1987	$ 392,557.00	$ 83,926.00	$ 303,318.00	$ 32,457.00	$ 42,029.00	$ 854,288.00
1988	$ 401,181.00	$ 94,508.00	$ 334,335.00	$ 35,227.00	$ 43,987.00	$ 909,238.00
1989	$ 445,690.00	$103,291.00	$ 359,416.00	$ 34,386.00	$ 48,321.00	$ 991,105.00
1990	$ 466,884.00	$ 93,507.00	$ 380,047.00	$ 35,345.00	$ 56,174.00	$1,031,958.00
1991	$ 467,827.00	$ 98,086.00	$ 396,016.00	$ 42,402.00	$ 50,657.00	$1,054,988.00
1992	$ 475,964.00	$100,270.00	$ 413,689.00	$ 45,569.00	$ 55,717.00	$1,091,208.00
1993	$ 509,680.00	$117,520.00	$ 428,300.00	$ 48,057.00	$ 50,778.00	$1,154,335.00
1994	$ 543,055.00	$140,385.00	$ 461,475.00	$ 55,225.00	$ 58,427.00	$1,258,566.00
1995	$ 590,244.00	$157,004.00	$ 484,473.00	$ 57,484.00	$ 62,585.00	$1,351,790.00
1996	$ 656,417.00	$171,824.00	$ 509,414.00	$ 54,014.00	$ 61,384.00	$1,453,053.00
1997	$ 737,466.00	$182,293.00	$ 539,371.00	$ 56,924.00	$ 63,178.00	$1,579,232.00
1998	$ 828,586.00	$188,677.00	$ 571,831.00	$ 57,673.00	$ 74,961.00	$1,721,728.00
1999	$ 879,480.00	$184,680.00	$ 611,833.00	$ 70,414.00	$ 81,045.00	$1,827,452.00
2000	$1,004,462.00	$207,289.00	$ 652,852.00	$ 68,865.00	$ 91,723.00	$2,025,191.00
2001	$ 994,339.00	$151,075.00	$ 693,967.00	$ 66,232.00	$ 85,469.00	$1,991,082.00
2002	$ 858,345.00	$148,044.00	$ 700,760.00	$ 66,989.00	$ 78,998.00	$1,853,136.00
2003	$ 793,699.00	$131,778.00	$ 712,978.00	$ 67,524.00	$ 76,335.00	$1,782,314.00
2004	$ 808,959.00	$189,371.00	$ 733,407.00	$ 69,855.00	$ 78,522.00	$1,880,114.00
2005	$ 927,222.00	$278,282.00	$ 794,125.00	$ 73,094.00	$ 80,888.00	$2,153,611.00
2006	$1,043,908.00	$353,915.00	$ 837,821.00	$ 73,961.00	$ 97,264.00	$2,406,869.00
2007	$1,163,472.00	$370,243.00	$ 869,607.00	$ 65,069.00	$ 99,594.00	$2,567,985.00
2008	$1,145,747.00	$304,346.00	$ 900,155.00	$ 67,334.00	$106,409.00	$2,523,991.00
2009	$ 915,308.00	$138,229.00	$ 890,917.00	$ 62,483.00	$ 98,052.00	$2,104,989.00
2010	$ 898,549.00	$191,437.00	$ 864,814.00	$ 66,909.00	$140,997.00	$2,162,706.00
2011	$1,091,473.00	$181,085.00	$ 818,792.00	$ 72,381.00	$139,735.00	$2,303,466.00
2012	$1,132,206.00	$242,289.00	$ 845,314.00	$ 79,061.00	$151,294.00	$2,450,164.00
2013 estimate	$1,234,012.00	$287,716.00	$ 951,093.00	$ 85,346.00	$153,878.00	$2,712,045.00
2014 estimate	$1,383,172.00	$332,819.00	$1,030,655.00	$104,949.00	$182,023.00	$3,033,618.00
2015 estimate	$1,551,774.00	$376,091.00	$1,084,566.00	$113,939.00	$205,315.00	$3,331,685.00
2016 estimate	$1,700,022.00	$401,324.00	$1,160,286.00	$114,806.00	$185,013.00	$3,561,451.00
2017 estimate	$1,843,569.00	$430,148.00	$1,218,321.00	$118,237.00	$150,267.00	$3,760,542.00
2018 estimate	$1,977,142.00	$450,377.00	$1,280,054.00	$125,092.00	$141,309.00	$3,973,974.00

Right,
You don’t care about debt.

 

[Brain357]

But you love military spending, you put it on the credit card.

Its a dangerous world out there

but I’m willing to reduce military spending by the same percentage that libs reduce domestic spending

Now you are a lot more serious than Jc.