• 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!

the reason for deficits

manofknowledge said:
So conservatives have control of the government for the past 2 years. Where are the spending cuts? Obama agreed to the sequester. That cut more spending than either Bush or Trump.
Click to expand...

Democrats are half of congress, and they will do anything to stop spending cuts, so its obviously politically difficult to do it. Heck, the Dems just voted with the GOP to increase spending. That said, spending to GDP went down .1% in 2017, and is expected to go down again in 2018, relative to GDP. The problem is thats its been 3%+ above revenue since the recession, while revenue has remained largely unchanged. Hence deficits. Spending needs to come down to 18% of GDP, like it was before 2001.
 
jonny5 said:
Sure thats one way of looking at it. But would you rather pay more or spend less? I mean, if the bottom 50% who are only paying 3% of income tax want to actually pay for the services they are receiving, I would be ok with that.

Personally I think 3 trillion is more than enough to fund the govt.
Click to expand...

At this point.. we need to pay more. Taxes are too low. and frankly.. the key to reducing spending.. is to tax the crap out of people every time spending is increased. Starve the beast has never worked.. and will never work.. because as long as their is deficit spending.. then wealthy people benefit.

I do think we can spend more efficiently and effectively.. and there may be some savings in that... But any huge cuts will put the economy in a tailspin.
 
jaeger19 said:
At this point.. we need to pay more. Taxes are too low. and frankly.. the key to reducing spending.. is to tax the crap out of people every time spending is increased. Starve the beast has never worked.. and will never work.. because as long as their is deficit spending.. then wealthy people benefit.

I do think we can spend more efficiently and effectively.. and there may be some savings in that... But any huge cuts will put the economy in a tailspin.
Click to expand...

No one is pushing to starve the beast. We're pushing for less spending period. And we arent talking about huge cuts. Simply go back to the level it was in 2001. Spending 3 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion. It might even help the economy if you cut welfare because people would have to go work and produce wealth instead of just consuming it. For example, simply changing SNAP to block grants would save 200 billion.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-09/52142-budgetoptions2.pdf
 
jonny5 said:
No one is pushing to starve the beast. We're pushing for less spending period. And we arent talking about huge cuts. Simply go back to the level it was in 2001. Spending 3 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion. It might even help the economy if you cut welfare because people would have to go work and produce wealth instead of just consuming it. For example, simply changing SNAP to block grants would save 200 billion.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-09/52142-budgetoptions2.pdf
Click to expand...

You aren;t going to get less spending when taxes are low. And the idea that cutting welfare will mean people will "now go to work".. is ludicrous.
 
jonny5 said:
No one is pushing to starve the beast. We're pushing for less spending period. And we arent talking about huge cuts. Simply go back to the level it was in 2001. Spending 3 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion. It might even help the economy if you cut welfare because people would have to go work and produce wealth instead of just consuming it. For example, simply changing SNAP to block grants would save 200 billion.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-09/52142-budgetoptions2.pdf
Click to expand...

Yearly cost of SNAP is less than $70 billion.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
 
It's pathetic and unproductive to continuously denegrate the Federal Government. Most Federal employees are highly competent, skilled professionals who endure extensive oversight and perform exceptionally well. We are responsible for the government we have. Most conservatives aren't aware of what the government does and how critical it is to our way of life. Government is the means by which we form a prosperous community. It doesn't happen by itself. In fact, the opposite happens. Without prudent government we become uncivilized. Then it is survival of the fittest.

Government is also the means by which we accomplish together that which cannot be accomplished privately. The government should do great things. Eisenhower was the last Republican President that actually wanted to do great things. He started building the Interstate highway system. Just imagine how that has benefitted everyone in the country. Now it is just inadequate and crumbling, but it was once a jewel for the world to emulate.

We spend more than we collect in revenue even though we don't need to. We have developed an economy that funnels wealth to the wealthiest and drives down income for working people. Who benefits most from this system? I say those who benefit the most have an obligation to pay a greater share. It is short sighted and bad for the country to starve people, make them homeless, make them suffer disease and hardship when the wealth of the country is such that it would neither hurt the economy or the wealthy to provide for all. I do not want a country comprised of walled islands of wealth surrounded by teaming disease ridden slums like Mexico or India but we are headed in that direction.
 
manofknowledge said:
I Who benefits most from this system? I say those who benefit the most have an obligation to pay a greater share. n.
Click to expand...

and that's exactly what happens.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax
Households with $150,000 or more in income make up 52% of total income nationally but pay large portion of total taxes
By Laura Saunders
April 6, 2018 5:30 a.m. ET

One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001


You can try to spin it with all kinds of anecdotes about Warren Buffets secretary and irrelevant effective rates and fica taxes, but the bottom line has been , is ,and will be---the rich pay a massiveley disproportionate share. Just as you suggest
 
KLATTU said:
and that's exactly what happens.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax
Households with $150,000 or more in income make up 52% of total income nationally but pay large portion of total taxes
By Laura Saunders
April 6, 2018 5:30 a.m. ET

One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001


You can try to spin it with all kinds of anecdotes about Warren Buffets secretary and irrelevant effective rates and fica taxes, but the bottom line has been , is ,and will be---the rich pay a massiveley disproportionate share. Just as you suggest
Click to expand...

And yet they receive an even more disproportionate share of the income. Statistics are clear that wealth is flowing to the top 20% in greater proportion than middle or lower incomes. Do you think that is healthy for the economy?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
 
manofknowledge said:
The only thing your chart shows is that revenue collections are too low to start with.
Click to expand...

At what rate do you think "revenue collection" is maximized?
What has a greater multiplier effect on economic activity, social spending? Government durable goods and infrastructure? Private investment?
 
manofknowledge said:
And yet they receive an even more disproportionate share of the income. Statistics are clear that wealth is flowing to the top 20% in greater proportion than middle or lower incomes. Do you think that is healthy for the economy?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Richest_Man_in_Babylon_(book)#The_Richest_Man_in_Babylon

It is not how much you earn it is how much you keep

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
manofknowledge said:
And yet they receive an even more disproportionate share of the income. Statistics are clear that wealth is flowing to the top 20% in greater proportion than middle or lower incomes. Do you think that is healthy for the economy?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
Click to expand...

Wealth does not 'flow' to the top nor is income 'received' ( even dividend income is based on somebody earning something at one time). this is left wing agitprop doublespeak that is purposely designed to create class warfare.
( somehow these people ' get' something and we don't).

It's also false that the top 20 % is a static group of people who keep separating themselves from the rest of the pack through the favors bestowed on them by politicians ( GOP naturally) .People move in and out of those groups all the time.

I am not at all concerned with income inequality. I'm concerned that there as few barriers as possible for people to better themselves.
If ( phony) Dems were sooooo concerned about thi,s the solution would be simple.
Pick a number- say 45,000. anybosy who makes below that ,gets that amount in a tax refund which is paid for proportionately by those who make above it.
 
johndylan1 said:
At what rate do you think "revenue collection" is maximized?
What has a greater multiplier effect on economic activity, social spending? Government durable goods and infrastructure? Private investment?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by maximized. There are many variables that affect revenue and tax rate is just one of them. The budget should be balanced and the debt paid down. Obama and many economists recommend a balanced approach. A combination of spending control and taxation. Currently corporate taxes only provide about 9% of total revenue. That seems a bit low to me. The disproportionate accumulation of wealth in the top 20% of the population seems to indicate room for increases there. Certainly there is room for spending cuts but it should not hamstring critical functions of government. Many folks don't realize that government makes the economy work. The economy is not self regulating. That has been proven time and again. Lais·sez-faire regulation of economic activity reduces competition while discouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. Unbridled capitalism is the law of the jungle.

Regarding investment, I don't think any of the types of investment you listed are independent of one another. Government investments in infrastructure enhance private investment. Private investment has to be regulated to be beneficial to a community. Toxic waste dumps are not beneficial to a community. Social spending increases consumerism and benefits private investment. As far as the multiplier effect, I suspect infrastructure investment yields the greatest return. It is the foundation of all economic activity and quality of life. The US can afford and should be making investments in big infrastructure projects, but they must be well planned and with an eye to the future. Adding another lane to an overcrowded freeway is expensive and will never make it less crowded. On the other hand better community planning reducinig urban sprawl and creating more green space would reduce traffic, lower the cost of living and attract private investment. Disaster mitigation is important as well. It makes no sense to repeatedly rebuild communities in a way the only results in their destruction once again. A better electrical grid with alternate energy sources would boost everyone. A pervasive broadband digital network nationwide would spread the wealth reducing the need to commute and allowing rural communities a new source of income. It's a conversation, we as a nation are not having. We are losing our competitive edge in the Global economy.
 
MrWonka said:
Where did you come up with this nonsense? Did one of your kids finally show you how to use photoshop?

Even the right-wing CATO institute knows better than this.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/budget-deficits-are-only-getting-bigger-under-trump





They're still wrong about a bunch of other nonsense, but if you can't even get a right wings source like them to support your lie then you know it's a really bad lie.
Click to expand...
You forgot the part where CATO mentioned spending. It's the first sentence of the article so you have to read past the headline. By the way CATO is Libertarian oriented.
 
manofknowledge said:
And yet they receive an even more disproportionate share of the income. Statistics are clear that wealth is flowing to the top 20% in greater proportion than middle or lower incomes. Do you think that is healthy for the economy?
Click to expand...
LOL, you do realize WHEREVER most of the income flows automatically BECOMES the top, right. There is no way to make that not happen. It's called math. Yes the top earner do make a larger percentage of the total income but they pay an even higher percentage of the total income tax as well.

manofknowledge said:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
Click to expand...
Income inequality is a red herring to hide envy and jealous of the manic left.
 
KLATTU said:
It's also false that the top 20 % is a static group of people who keep separating themselves from the rest of the pack through the favors bestowed on them by politicians ( GOP naturally) .People move in and out of those groups all the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. its not false. Particularly in todays America.
 
Conservative said:
I have stated and continue to state it is time to truly change the swamp getting rid of career politicians and enacting term limits. The issue on the debt continues to be that raises taxes will never guarantee that the Congress will cut spending and reduce the debt. Will never understand the fixation by you and the left on raising taxes knowing that the bureaucrats will always spend the money and higher taxes means less money for the states and local governments.

Not one Progressive has given any number to what percentage of income should go to federal, state, and local taxes and not one person has explained how higher federal income taxes impacts other revenue streams including state sales taxes. Do you want to be the first to answer?
Click to expand...

How about all of it?
 
jaeger19 said:
You aren;t going to get less spending when taxes are low. And the idea that cutting welfare will mean people will "now go to work".. is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

And yet its the basis for society. People work to survive. And its proven that when work requirements are added to welfare, people go to work.

Furthermore, its completely logical that when you have less income you spend less. Only the govt does it the other way. Youre essentially arguing that thousands of years of human behavior no longer applies. And to a point, with easy borrowing, I suppose we can get away with it for a while. But the pressure to deal with the debt is only increasing.
 
manofknowledge said:
It's pathetic and unproductive to continuously denegrate the Federal Government. Most Federal employees are highly competent, skilled professionals who endure extensive oversight and perform exceptionally well. We are responsible for the government we have. Most conservatives aren't aware of what the government does and how critical it is to our way of life. Government is the means by which we form a prosperous community. It doesn't happen by itself. In fact, the opposite happens. Without prudent government we become uncivilized. Then it is survival of the fittest.

Government is also the means by which we accomplish together that which cannot be accomplished privately. The government should do great things. Eisenhower was the last Republican President that actually wanted to do great things. He started building the Interstate highway system. Just imagine how that has benefitted everyone in the country. Now it is just inadequate and crumbling, but it was once a jewel for the world to emulate.

We spend more than we collect in revenue even though we don't need to. We have developed an economy that funnels wealth to the wealthiest and drives down income for working people. Who benefits most from this system? I say those who benefit the most have an obligation to pay a greater share. It is short sighted and bad for the country to starve people, make them homeless, make them suffer disease and hardship when the wealth of the country is such that it would neither hurt the economy or the wealthy to provide for all. I do not want a country comprised of walled islands of wealth surrounded by teaming disease ridden slums like Mexico or India but we are headed in that direction.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of cultures who agree with you and countries full of it. America is not one of them. This country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, minimal govt, that govt exists to secure your right to be free, to protect you from violence, and little else.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, you do realize WHEREVER most of the income flows automatically BECOMES the top, right. There is no way to make that not happen. It's called math. Yes the top earner do make a larger percentage of the total income but they pay an even higher percentage of the total income tax as well.
Click to expand...

The original comment was in response to KLATTU's comment complaining that the to 20% income group pays 87% of the income tax. That fact is irrelevant. They are not being taxed into the poor house, their wealth continues to grow faster than lower income groups pushing more and more of the wealth into fewer and fewer hands. It's not healthy for the economy.

Bullseye said:
Income inequality is a red herring to hide envy and jealous of the manic left.
Click to expand...

Income inequality is a fact. I could easily make the claim that it's jealousy and envy on the part of the wealthy complaining about their high taxes. They pay a higher tax for a reason. The critical question is what is good about an economic system in which only a small percentage of the total population prospers?
 
jonny5 said:
There are plenty of cultures who agree with you and countries full of it. America is not one of them. This country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, minimal govt, that govt exists to secure your right to be free, to protect you from violence, and little else.
Click to expand...

Actually that statement is patently false. There is no mandate in the Constitution regarding the size of the government or what its limitations should be. The Constitution, in it's Preamble, states one of its purposes is to promote the "General Welfare" of its citizens. It's up to us to determine what that government should do as long as the rights of individuals are protected. John Adams stated that there should not be a square mile in the US which does not include a publicly funded school. Many leaders of our government have promoted national health care programs. Few would argue the National Park system should not be maintained. Few would argue there is no need to promote scientific research that is not for profit. Few would argue that corporations should be allowed to hide their finances and defraud investors. Few would argue that there should be no standards of quality for foods or drugs sold to the public. Your comment fails to recognize what the Federal government does to improve the lives of its citizens and maintain civil order.
 
jonny5 said:
And yet its the basis for society. People work to survive. And its proven that when work requirements are added to welfare, people go to work.

.
Click to expand...

Actually no. When people that are poor are not punished by losing benefits when they go to work.. then its better for them to go to work. When poor people don't have stability.. and know that if they work too much or work at all.. then they will say.. lose healthcare for their child with medical problems.. then they is little incentive to work more and risk losing their safety net.

Furthermore, its completely logical that when you have less income you spend less
Click to expand...
Not when you can borrow with impunity.

Youre essentially arguing that thousands of years of human behavior no longer applies
Click to expand...
Nope.. I am actually arguing that thousands of years of human behavior actually applies. YOU are the one arguing that it does not apply.

When a rich person lobbies for say more spending on agriculture by the government.. and that government spending is going to go to provide a pivot on his property, he gets an advantage.. and when his taxes don't go UP with that spending.. but are actually going down? He gets double that advantage.

Its logical and human behavior to do that which gives us advantage.

But the pressure to deal with the debt is only increasing
Click to expand...
No its not. In fact. once republicans got in charge of government.. the pressure to deal with debt went out the window.. down the street and got buried in the cementary.
 
manofknowledge said:
Actually that statement is patently false. There is no mandate in the Constitution regarding the size of the government or what its limitations should be. The Constitution, in it's Preamble, states one of its purposes is to promote the "General Welfare" of its citizens. It's up to us to determine what that government should do as long as the rights of individuals are protected. John Adams stated that there should not be a square mile in the US which does not include a publicly funded school. Many leaders of our government have promoted national health care programs. Few would argue the National Park system should not be maintained. Few would argue there is no need to promote scientific research that is not for profit. Few would argue that corporations should be allowed to hide their finances and defraud investors. Few would argue that there should be no standards of quality for foods or drugs sold to the public. Your comment fails to recognize what the Federal government does to improve the lives of its citizens and maintain civil order.
Click to expand...
Guess again. The constitution very explicitly limits the power of the federal government. Look up "enumerated powers".
"
 
Bullseye said:
Guess again. The constitution very explicitly limits the power of the federal government. Look up "enumerated powers".
"
Click to expand...

So, not only is nation healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. bad ideas, they are also unconstitutional, according to you. Well, courts disagree with that viewpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom