Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Critter7r · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Republicans took the Congress in 1994 not when Clinton was elected. Did Clinton sign the Republican sponsored budget legislation or did he spend what he wanted to spend? Oh by the way GDP Growth fourth qtr before Clinton took office was over 4% so Clinton was not handed a recession although he did leave the country in one when he left office

Nice deflection. I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you, though.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
Somehow I doubt that your premise makes anyone require less defense, education, or infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Education isn't funded by the federal govt. although it does get funds from the federal taxpayers, infrastructure spending comes from the excise taxes collected on products requiring that infrastructure. Again, please learn the role of the Federal Govt. and stop buying what you are told

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
Nice deflection. I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you, though.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Just pointing out actual history something you seem to ignore

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
My point also stands, as I've not *defended* any spending in this thread, merely pointed out your bias and shown you that cutting revenue and increasing spending have the same effect on the debt.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

The problem is spending was increased and spending is the problem which is being ignored. Cutting taxes didn't cause the deficit as it grew revenue, excessive spending caused the deficit and excessive spending buys votes which is why Congress does it

Critter7r · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Bush was part of the problem but had help from the Democrat controlled Congress that benefited from the recession. Then of course there is the worst recovery from a recession in history that you want to ignore. The magnitude of this Recession affected you and your family how?

My wife (who earned 40% of our household income) lost her job due to 'downsizing'. She worked 3 part time jobs for 4 years. I took a 15% pay cut to keep my job. We literally had out income cut by more than 50%.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Critter7r · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Education isn't funded by the federal govt. although it does get funds from the federal taxpayers, infrastructure spending comes from the excise taxes collected on products requiring that infrastructure. Again, please learn the role of the Federal Govt. and stop buying what you are told

Federal excise taxes are still federal taxes. And if you respond with, "but i was only talking about federal *income* tax", i won't bother to respond.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Critter7r · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Education isn't funded by the federal govt. although it does get funds from the federal taxpayers, infrastructure spending comes from the excise taxes collected on products requiring that infrastructure. Again, please learn the role of the Federal Govt. and stop buying what you are told

Can you say, "No Child Left Behind"?

They may not fund a LOT of k-12 education, but $70Bn isn't chump change.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
My wife (who earned 40% of our household income) lost her job due to 'downsizing'. She worked 3 part time jobs for 4 years. I took a 15% pay cut to keep my job. We literally had out income cut by more than 50%.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I am so sorry to hear that and can see your bias against Bush but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't Bush that caused the recession although he had input in it. He took a major hit because of marketing by the left that continues today. The left benefited from the crisis and blamed Bush for it which the media and people like you bought.

Downsizing continues all over the country and has for decades so to blame any one individual is exactly what the left wants you to do as they never take responsibility for anything

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
Federal excise taxes are still federal taxes. And if you respond with, "but i was only talking about federal *income* tax", i won't bother to respond.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Yes, they fund Federal Highway, bridges, and other infrastructure projects and they were not cut. FICA funds SS and Medicare which were cut leaving a shortfall there. income taxes fund the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. When income taxes are cut that puts more money into the hands of the people who spend it, save it, invest it, or pay down debt meaning less need for the federal govt. to provide so called help which appeals to your heart

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Education isn't funded by the federal govt.

The Department of Education's role is to supply additional funding for schools that want it. The DoE does not force any school to accept federal grants. The DoE does not employ any teachers. The DoE does not set mandatory standards for education. Everything within the function of the DoE is voluntary. Meaning schools don't have to accept federal money if they don't want to.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor said:
The Department of Education's role is to supply additional funding for schools that want it. The DoE does not force any school to accept federal grants. The DoE does not employ any teachers. The DoE does not set mandatory standards for education. Everything within the function of the DoE is voluntary. Meaning schools don't have to accept federal money if they don't want to.

The DoE funds federal mandates like testing, they do not fund the daily operating expenses of the schools something you continue to ignore so why do we have a Dept. of education?

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
The DoE funds federal mandates like testing

Yes, but that's not educating. That's measuring the effectiveness of education. Whether you believe that is sound policy or not, that's all it does.

they do not fund the daily operating expenses of the schools something you continue to ignore so why do we have a Dept. of education?

Yes, I know they do not fund the daily operating expenses of schools. I said that in the post you responded to. The DoE exists as a means for schools to get additional funding support if they want it. No one is twisting their arms.

Critter7r · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
I am so sorry to hear that and can see your bias against Bush but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't Bush that caused the recession although he had input in it. He took a major hit because of marketing by the left that continues today. The left benefited from the crisis and blamed Bush for it which the media and people like you bought.

Downsizing continues all over the country and has for decades so to blame any one individual is exactly what the left wants you to do as they never take responsibility for anything

I don't have a bias against Bush. I have a bias against the rose colored glasses through which you see his administration. Which obviously appears as bias to you, and a moderate view to me.

I don't think they purposely led the country into the worst recession in a century, but the actions he/they took caused it. Whether it was foreseeable or not is always going to be up for debate. But I believe that actions were taken to save the administration at the expense of the citizens. And that's not how it should work.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor;1066753390]Yes, but that's not educating. That's measuring the effectiveness of education. Whether you believe that is sound policy or not, that's all it does.

Not sure what your point is here but I have never supported the Dept. of Education and 10's of billions of dollar budget and that is the point. This is federal spending that needs to be addressed but your concern isn't about spending but rather tax cuts allowing people to keep more of what they earn? Is you real problem that you didn't get a tax cut?

Yes, I know they do not fund the daily operating expenses of schools. I said that in the post you responded to. The DoE exists as a means for schools to get additional funding support if they want it. No one is twisting their arms.

I agree and have always said that spending is the problem not tax cuts. It is your belief that other taxes have to be increased to fund the federal govt. which is the real problem not allowing people to keep more of what they earn. spending cuts can start with the Dept of Education, and proceed to the social engineering of the federal govt. and then you don't need more revenue

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Critter7r said:
I don't have a bias against Bush. I have a bias against the rose colored glasses through which you see his administration. Which obviously appears as bias to you, and a moderate view to me.

I don't think they purposely led the country into the worst recession in a century, but the actions he/they took caused it. Whether it was foreseeable or not is always going to be up for debate. But I believe that actions were taken to save the administration at the expense of the citizens. And that's not how it should work.

Rose colored glasses? That is what you want to believe in spite of my actual statements to the contrary. You have been a cheerleader against Bush ignoring the Obama record. Bush has been out of office for 8 years and still is responsible for the Obama performance and that is the real problem

Obama has been an opportunity lost, he is all fluff and no substance. Anytime you put someone whose major accomplishment is being a community organizer in the top job in the country you are going to have a problem and we do. The Obama record is one of failure, not success. his personality trumps those results which IMO is the real problem. Being objective isn't something the left is very good at as they rely on emotional rhetoric, lies, distortions, and diversions.

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Not sure what your point is here but I have never supported the Dept. of Education and 10's of billions of dollar budget and that is the point. This is federal spending that needs to be addressed but your concern isn't about spending but rather tax cuts allowing people to keep more of what they earn? Is you real problem that you didn't get a tax cut?

OK, so if you get rid of the DoE, what is to be done about student loans, Pell Grants, and standardized testing? And again with this dogma around tax cuts. People do not get to keep more of what they earn after tax cuts because that which they "keep" gets paid right back to the state (and then some) in the forms of higher fees and higher excise taxes.

Also, note how the Conservative argument for tax cuts has shifted from "they will wash us in so much revenue, growth will be amazing" to "they're only effective if they are accompanied by spending cuts". So by using the "keep what you earn" argument you are tacitly admitting that cutting taxes isn't sound fiscal policy, doesn't benefit the economy, and only seeks to increase fees and excise taxes for the middle and lower class.

No business ever hires someone because of taxes. They hire and fire people based on demand for the product or service they produce.

It is your belief that other taxes have to be increased to fund the federal govt. which is the real problem not allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

They're not keeping more of what they earned because they're paying for increased excise taxes and fees. So that's why in some states, it costs a fortune to register your vehicle and in other states it doesn't. Try and guess which states are which! All you're doing by making that argument is saying that the middle and lower classes should bear more of the burden of taxation, which leaves them with less, not more.

pending cuts can start with the Dept of Education, and proceed to the social engineering of the federal govt. and then you don't need more revenue

So these sound like silly buzz words and catchphrases that sound nice to those looking to have their bias confirmed. Fact is that even if you cut all Federal Discretionary spending, you still are running a deficit and you've taken government demand out of the economy, which causes less spending. I think you people think that the private sector makes up for the spending the federal government doesn't, and that it's dollar-for-dollar. But that's magical thinking and not the case at all.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

=Incisor;1066753545]OK, so if you get rid of the DoE, what is to be done about student loans, Pell Grants, and standardized testing? And again with this dogma around tax cuts. People do not get to keep more of what they earn after tax cuts because that which they "keep" gets paid right back to the state (and then some) in the forms of higher fees and higher excise taxes.

Earning a tax cut? That is your problem and lack of understanding that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives them choice of how to spend their money. you say they spend more but only if they choose to spend more and you have yet to offer any proof that tax cuts cause other taxes to go up because you have no understanding of the abuse those taxes have had at the hands of the bureaucrats. SS and Medicare for example are funded by Payroll taxes but the money was put on budget and spent as part of the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. Until govt. spending is addressed let the people keep their money because the govt. cannot be trusted with it

Also, note how the Conservative argument for tax cuts has shifted from "they will wash us in so much revenue, growth will be amazing" to "they're only effective if they are accompanied by spending cuts". So by using the "keep what you earn" argument you are tacitly admitting that cutting taxes isn't sound fiscal policy, doesn't benefit the economy, and only seeks to increase fees and excise taxes for the middle and lower class.

You simply don't have a clue about people spending more of their own money because apparently you don't have a job and don't understand that. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is always good fiscal policy for the individuals earning the money, not so good for people like you who don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. In addition almost half the income earning people in this country pay no FIT but that is ignored by you as well

No business ever hires someone because of taxes. They hire and fire people based on demand for the product or service they produce.

Your point? We are talking personal income taxes here not business taxes but business taxes do indeed affect small business just like regulations

They're not keeping more of what they earned because they're paying for increased excise taxes and fees. So that's why in some states, it costs a fortune to register your vehicle and in other states it doesn't. Try and guess which states are which! All you're doing by making that argument is saying that the middle and lower classes should bear more of the burden of taxation, which leaves them with less, not more.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. You better learn that costs of registering your vehicle should have nothing to do with people keeping more of what they earn.. One of these days you are going to get it and realize what a fool the left has made out of you

So these sound like silly buzz words and catchphrases that sound nice to those looking to have their bias confirmed. Fact is that even if you cut all Federal Discretionary spending, you still are running a deficit and you've taken government demand out of the economy, which causes less spending. I think you people think that the private sector makes up for the spending the federal government doesn't, and that it's dollar-for-dollar. But that's magical thinking and not the case at all.

spoken like that good little leftwing soldier who doesn't understand the budget at all. Had the SS and Medicare money not been used to fund daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt. it wouldn't be a problem here today with the shortfall and log term debt obligations. You are certainly a proponent of big govt. liberalism and you just lost in November

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Earning a tax cut? That is your problem and lack of understanding that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives them choice of how to spend their money.

You keep saying that, but are completely ignoring what transpires after income taxes are cut. Want to know why you have to pay so much to register your car? It's because the state gave tax cuts to the 1%. Want to know why tuition at the State University is so high? It's because the state gave tax cuts to the 1%. What you don't seem to understand is that income tax cuts shift the taxation burden more on the middle and lower class, thus reducing the amount of discretionary spending they can do because the money they got to "keep" just gets handed to the state anyway in the forms of higher fees and excise taxes. You understand that math, right? If so, why are you pretending you don't?

SS and Medicare for example are funded by Payroll taxes but the money was put on budget and spent as part of the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. Until govt. spending is addressed let the people keep their money because the govt. cannot be trusted with it

That's because there's no borrowing costs. If you are so concerned about SS, then you should support removing the cap on taxable income.

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is always good fiscal policy

Sure! But not when you take into account the increase in regressive taxes that are required to make up for the gap produced by income tax cuts. We were promised by you guys that if we cut taxes for the 1%, the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" by creating such stupendous growth. That isn't and never will be the case. Cutting income taxes is not good fiscal policy, as we are seeing in real time in Kansas.

As I said before, you shifted your argument from economics to philosophy. You did that because there exists no evidence to support your position because you know that tax cuts don't generate increased economic growth, which is how they've been propagandized the last 35 years. Only now are you trying to make it a philosophical argument because you lost the economic argument.

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
Your point? We are talking personal income taxes here not business taxes but business taxes do indeed affect small business just like regulations

No they don't. They're taxed on profit, not revenues. And I've never heard a business owner say they are going to close the shop early because they made too much money.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

You should heed your own advice, particularly here: "Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is always good fiscal policy". You tried to make a philosophical argument inside an economic one and you failed both. Why? For one, this isn't a philosophical issue. For two, there is no evidence that it's good fiscal policy to do that, as we've seen in Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona over the last couple years.

You better learn that costs of registering your vehicle should have nothing to do with people keeping more of what they earn.

It has everything to do with it. The state collects less revenue because of income tax cuts. The state has a budget deficit. The state has a balanced budget amendment. So in order for the state to fulfill its balanced budget amendment, it must cut government services (which Kansas did to the bone) and/or raise revenues from other sources in order to meet its obligation. That is done mostly by increase excise taxes -which Kansas did by increasing the sales tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax and by raising fees like tuition at KSU or higher Medicaid co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles. The state can also cut spending, which Kansas did as well, going so far as to close schools early so the 1% can get their tax break. Kansas literally traded their kids' education so a small handful of rich people could be even richer. That's why Brownback's allies lost in 2016, and why moderate, potty-trained Republicans are debating a repeal of the tax cuts.

Had the SS and Medicare money not been used to fund daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt. it wouldn't be a problem here today with the shortfall and log term debt obligations.

Worrying about 50 year long-term obligations in the midst of an economic recovery is stupid and transparent. It's obvious you don't care about debt or deficits, and are using manufactured deficits and debt as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor said:
You keep saying that, but are completely ignoring what transpires after income taxes are cut. Want to know why you have to pay so much to register your car? It's because the state gave tax cuts to the 1%. Want to know why tuition at the State University is so high? It's because the state gave tax cuts to the 1%. What you don't seem to understand is that income tax cuts shift the taxation burden more on the middle and lower class, thus reducing the amount of discretionary spending they can do because the money they got to "keep" just gets handed to the state anyway in the forms of higher fees and excise taxes. You understand that math, right? If so, why are you pretending you don't?

That's because there's no borrowing costs. If you are so concerned about SS, then you should support removing the cap on taxable income.

Sure! But not when you take into account the increase in regressive taxes that are required to make up for the gap produced by income tax cuts. We were promised by you guys that if we cut taxes for the 1%, the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" by creating such stupendous growth. That isn't and never will be the case. Cutting income taxes is not good fiscal policy, as we are seeing in real time in Kansas.

As I said before, you shifted your argument from economics to philosophy. You did that because there exists no evidence to support your position because you know that tax cuts don't generate increased economic growth, which is how they've been propagandized the last 35 years. Only now are you trying to make it a philosophical argument because you lost the economic argument.

No, it is you that ignores what happens when income taxes are cut people get to keep more of what they earn and have a choice on where to spend their money. For some reason you believe that other taxes have to go up to compensate ignoring what those taxes actually fund. You are totally brainwashed in the leftwing ideology ignoring how the govt. wastes money but that never enters your equation. You seem to buy what they govt. tells you in that they actually need that money. Where is the Kansas shortfall and how is that related to income tax cuts?

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor said:
No they don't. They're taxed on profit, not revenues. And I've never heard a business owner say they are going to close the shop early because they made too much money.

You should heed your own advice, particularly here: "Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is always good fiscal policy". You tried to make a philosophical argument inside an economic one and you failed both. Why? For one, this isn't a philosophical issue. For two, there is no evidence that it's good fiscal policy to do that, as we've seen in Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona over the last couple years.

It has everything to do with it. The state collects less revenue because of income tax cuts. The state has a budget deficit. The state has a balanced budget amendment. So in order for the state to fulfill its balanced budget amendment, it must cut government services (which Kansas did to the bone) and/or raise revenues from other sources in order to meet its obligation. That is done mostly by increase excise taxes -which Kansas did by increasing the sales tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax and by raising fees like tuition at KSU or higher Medicaid co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles. The state can also cut spending, which Kansas did as well, going so far as to close schools early so the 1% can get their tax break. Kansas literally traded their kids' education so a small handful of rich people could be even richer. That's why Brownback's allies lost in 2016, and why moderate, potty-trained Republicans are debating a repeal of the tax cuts.

Worrying about 50 year long-term obligations in the midst of an economic recovery is stupid and transparent. It's obvious you don't care about debt or deficits, and are using manufactured deficits and debt as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to.

You are totally ignorant of economic results. maybe when you get a job you will understand taxes better

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
No, it is you that ignores what happens when income taxes are cut people get to keep more of what they earn and have a choice on where to spend their money.

I don't ignore it, you do. You are ignoring that the money those people get to "keep" just gets paid to the state anyway by way of higher excise taxes and higher fees. For God's sake, Kansas increased its sales tax because of the revenue gaps from the tax cuts. They also raised Medicaid co-pays and co-insurance, as well as tuition across the Kansas State University system. You're so married to the dogma that you can't get out of your own way. You've convinced yourself that your theory is sound, but the evidence points to the contrary. As I said, that's why you are so eager to make it a philosophical argument and have completely abandoned the previous pro-tax cut arguments of "they will pay for themselves", "they will create miraculous growth", "they're good for the economy", and/or "they'll trickle down!". You don't make those arguments anymore because you can't. There's no evidence to support any of it. So you skirt around taking responsibility for the position by trying to make it a subjective philosophical argument.

Where is the Kansas shortfall and how is that related to income tax cuts?

Are you kidding!?

Incisor · Jan 11, 2017

Conservative said:
You are totally ignorant of economic results. maybe when you get a job you will understand taxes better

You don't know sh-t about me. It's obvious all your bluster is just masking insecurity in your argument because there is nothing that supports it.

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor said:
I don't ignore it, you do. You are ignoring that the money those people get to "keep" just gets paid to the state anyway by way of higher excise taxes and higher fees. For God's sake, Kansas increased its sales tax because of the revenue gaps from the tax cuts. They also raised Medicaid co-pays and co-insurance, as well as tuition across the Kansas State University system. You're so married to the dogma that you can't get out of your own way. You've convinced yourself that your theory is sound, but the evidence points to the contrary. As I said, that's why you are so eager to make it a philosophical argument and have completely abandoned the previous pro-tax cut arguments of "they will pay for themselves", "they will create miraculous growth", "they're good for the economy", and/or "they'll trickle down!". You don't make those arguments anymore because you can't. There's no evidence to support any of it. So you skirt around taking responsibility for the position by trying to make it a subjective philosophical argument.

Are you kidding!?

If it gets paid to the state anyway why is there a budget shortfall? Let people decide how to spend their money. My theory is indeed sound and the principles upon which this country was founded. You are nothing more than a typical leftwing socialist hack who believes it is the role of the govt. to provide you for everything you want. You have yet to explain where the Kansas shortfall has come from and why that shortfall cannot be cut by actually reducing expenses and making people responsible for their own social responsibilities.

You have a problem with people keeping more of their own money which says a lot about you

Conservative · Jan 11, 2017

Incisor said:
You don't know sh-t about me. It's obvious all your bluster is just masking insecurity in your argument because there is nothing that supports it.

I know enough from your posts to know you are wrong on just about every issue. Maybe if you earned an income you would have a different attitude on keeping more of that income so you can spend it vs. bureaucrat doing it for you