• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We Have a Spending Problem

James972 said:
what does that mean?? govt spending and waste is growing just as liberals want so is that what you call the latest trickle down??
Click to expand...

How can that be possible when the white house is occupied by the greatest republican president ever, and when both houses of congress are held by republicans?

Hmmm.
 
jonny5 said:
It did work, except as usual they ****ed it up with spending. We have a spending problem.

Under Bush tax cuts, revenue rose by 200bn prior to recession, Spending rose by 600bn
Under Reagan , revenue rose by 300bn. Spending rose by 500bn

All they had to do was slow down spending, and revenue would have caught up. Same as now. Same as we did under Obama with the sequester.
Click to expand...

Revenues have risen under every single president, regardless of tax hikes or cuts or stability of tax policy. Thus, your attempted point is invalid.
 
jonny5 said:
We can afford all three. We cant afford all three AND all the other things on top of that. I described that in the OP.

3.3 Trillion revenue - 1.3 trillion Social Security/Hospitals - 700bn Defense - 300bn interest = 1 trillion left over.

With that 1 trillion we can afford some of

Roads
Justice
Science
Education
Environment
Foreign Affairs
Agriculture
Healthcare
Veterans
Energy
Housing

We cant afford all of it. So what can we do without?
Click to expand...

Why can't we afford it? We've been affording all of that for decades. You know who really pays for that stuff? The workers who get up and go to those government jobs, who would otherwise be unemployed. they pay for it with their time and effort. The government can issue enough money to pay for all of that, they don't need my tax money for the purpose of revenue (which isn't to suggest that we don't need taxation, we just don't need it for revenue).

I would suggest that we can't afford to go without that stuff. I'd be happy with the elimination of means tested benefits though, that's pure waste.
 
Last edited:
As Paul Krugman wrote in today's column:

There’s no mystery about the Republican agenda. For at least the past 40 years, the G.O.P.’s central policy goal has been upward redistribution of income: lower taxes for the wealthy, big cuts in programs that help the poor and the middle class. We’ve seen that agenda at work in the policies of every Republican president from Reagan to Trump, every budget proposal from party stars like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House.

This policy agenda is, however, deeply unpopular. Only small minorities of voters favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations; even smaller minorities favor cuts in major social programs. So how does the G.O.P. stay politically competitive? The answer is that the party has mastered the tactics of bait and switch: pretending to stand for one thing, then doing something quite different in office.
...
Republicans tried to sell their candidate by touting the 2017 tax cuts, which they portrayed as a boon to the middle class. This was classic Bush-era strategy: The Trump tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, did indeed offer some temporary relief to middle-class families, although they offered far more to the wealthy.
What makes this a bait and switch is the hard truth that tax cuts must, eventually, be paid for — in fact, people like Ryan barely waited for the ink on the tax bill to dry before proclaiming that social programs must be cut to reduce the budget deficit the tax cuts will do so much to inflate. And under any plausible allocation of the spending cuts needed to offset lost revenue, the tax cuts will leave most Americans worse off (while, of course, benefiting the top 1 percent).
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
Click to expand...



good post: after looking at that I come to the conclusion that we are pretty much ****ed ...........
 
James972 said:
... the instant they [China] switched to Republican capitalism another 60 million were saved from socialist slow starvation ...
Click to expand...

danielpalos said:
What capitalism? They still haven't filled their empty cities. That is not capitalism.
Click to expand...

James972 said:
and?????????????
Click to expand...

Love this ...

J: They switched to Capitalism and saved 60 million from starvation
D: The system they switched to isn't Capitalism.
J: So what!! I'm just here to argue!!! And yell!!
 
Last edited:
Critter7r said:
Love this ...

J: They switched to Capitalism and saved 60 million from starvation
D: The system they switched to isn't Capitalism.
J: So what!! I'm just here to argue!!! And yell!!
Click to expand...

Every country has a blend. what he is saying is that they moved the needle FROM communism TO more capitalism and , naturally, things got much ,much better for poor people in China.

why people like you are SO determined to cede control of your lives to the Government is beyond me.
 
Critter7r said:
D: The system they switched to isn't Capitalism.
Click to expand...

it was a huge huge leap away from communism and toward capitalism. Here are some books if you wish to begin your education:

"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.




U.S.'s Startup Myth; China's 'Ford Moment': Commentary Review ...
Jul 3, 2010... may have to go Communist. It's tempting to wonder which way China will go. ... So far, China has taken the first path, going more the way of capitalism than Communism. ... Krugman or Paulson: Who You Gonna Bet On? ...

404. Page Not Found - Bloomberg... - Similar

The Myth of Asia's Miracle

Paul Krugman* ... Communist growth rates were certainly impressive, but not magical. ..... unfair: one is weighing down the buoyant performance of Chinese capitalism with the leaden performance of Chinese socialism. ... Even a modest slowing in China's growth will change the geopolitical outlook substantially. ...

web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html - Similar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom