• 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!

How to balance the budget in 3 steps

Cheney/GW executed the worst presidential pass-on since the great depression - Housing/banking crisis, bankrupt US auto industry, CEO corruption gone Amok, a severely depressed stock market, high unemployment, 2 wars, and much more. Before Obama put his hand on the bible, the deficit was approaching $1.4 Trillion. After he cleaned up these messes, the deficit started dropping like a rock, and it ended up less than half of the inherited $1.4 Trillion.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ill-not-tax-cuts-caused-the-financial-crisis/

During Monday's presidential debate, Hillary Clinton weighed in on the 2008 financial crisis, blaming "tax cuts" during the Bush years and implying that deregulation was also to blame. It's another example of the whoppers Hillary Clinton and other Democrats tell about the recession they caused.

If a gold medal were awarded for chutzpah, Hillary Clinton would surely be a multiple winner by now.

"Well, let's stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago," Clinton said. "We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off Wall Street, and created a perfect storm."

To be as kind as possible, the idea that "tax policies" -- including the 2003 tax cuts — were the root cause of the financial panic is an idea espoused by no one we're aware of in the economics profession. It was those tax cuts that in fact revived the economy, which had begun failing in the waning months of the Clinton administration.

From 2003 to 2007, the tax cuts helped push real GDP up 15.2%, or more than 3% a year. And, as Avik Roy notes in a recent Forbes piece, "the wealthy actually contributed more in taxes after the 'cuts' went into effect." In 2003, the top 1% in incomes paid $256 billion in taxes. In 2007, they paid $471 billion.

The "failed to invest in the middle class" line is even better, since it is entirely devoid of meaning. Seems we had nearly $8 trillion in added government "investment," as our soaring national debt now shows, thanks to President Obama, Hillary and the rest of the profligate party she now leads.

Did that go to the middle class? Sure doesn't look like it.

But what's most interesting about Hillary's remark is it ignores the actual responsibility that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, bear for creating the financial crisis. It's hypocrisy that the Clinton Democrats, who created the housing bubble in the 1990s and 2000s with their policies, now have spun a false tale of Wall Street greed, crazy deregulation, and tax cuts as the causes of the crisis.

Here's the real story, in brief: In 1995, using the powers of the presidency, Bill Clinton turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act into an aggressive program that basically forced banks to lend money to "underserved" communities. That meant those with low incomes who couldn't necessarily repay a loan.
 
Pretty funny watching partisans argue about which party will balance the federal budget when none of either party's economic advisors, treasury secretaries, et al. would even recommend balancing the federal budget even if it were a simple choice to do so.
 
Pretty funny watching partisans argue about which party will balance the federal budget when none of either party's economic advisors, treasury secretaries, et al. would even recommend balancing the federal budget even if it were a simple choice to do so.

Truer words were seldom spoken... Personally, I wouldn't even think of trying to balance the Budget unless we could consistently achieve 4% real growth. That being said, I think the size of the deficit does need to be addressed. As a percentage of GDP it's running about what it was during the Reagan Administration... but the major difference then was that we had a big Off-Budget Social Security surplus to soak up the deficit spending... we don't have that luxury anymore.
 
Pretty funny watching partisans argue about which party will balance the federal budget when none of either party's economic advisors, treasury secretaries, et al. would even recommend balancing the federal budget even if it were a simple choice to do so.
But both sides argue about the size of the debt. The only we to reduce THAT is to not only BALANCE the budget but actually have SURPLUSES for many years.
 
But both sides argue about the size of the debt. The only we to reduce THAT is to not only BALANCE the budget but actually have SURPLUSES for many years.

Which both parties‘ advisers would strongly recommend not be done or even attempted.

The federal deficit and debt thing is a political football and that’s it. Play offense when the other team is in power, play defense when you’re in power.
 
But both sides argue about the size of the debt. The only we to reduce THAT is to not only BALANCE the budget but actually have SURPLUSES for many years.

Unless the economy is growing at about a 4% clip (adjusted for inflation), I don't think it's even possible to balance the budget without triggering a massive recession.
 
Unless the economy is growing at about a 4% clip (adjusted for inflation), I don't think it's even possible to balance the budget without triggering a massive recession.
Probably take more than that.
 

Bush and Cheney were in way over their head. They had no idea what was happening right under their watch. Eight years of mismanagement, and you blame it on the Clintons, when the facts are that Clinton/Gore handed off a BUDGET SURPLUS to GW and Cheney..

Cheney/GW executed the worst presidential pass-on since the great depression - Housing/banking crisis, bankrupt US auto industry, CEO corruption gone Amok, a severely depressed stock market, high unemployment, 2 wars, and much more. Before Obama put his hand on the bible, the deficit was approaching $1.4 Trillion. After he cleaned up these messes, the deficit started dropping like a rock, and it ended up less than half of the inherited $1.4 Trillion.
 
Bush and Cheney were in way over their head. They had no idea what was happening right under their watch. Eight years of mismanagement, and you blame it on the Clintons, when the facts are that Clinton/Gore handed off a BUDGET SURPLUS to GW and Cheney..

Cheney/GW executed the worst presidential pass-on since the great depression - Housing/banking crisis, bankrupt US auto industry, CEO corruption gone Amok, a severely depressed stock market, high unemployment, 2 wars, and much more. Before Obama put his hand on the bible, the deficit was approaching $1.4 Trillion. After he cleaned up these messes, the deficit started dropping like a rock, and it ended up less than half of the inherited $1.4 Trillion.

You need to get out of the past and get a civics education, Presidents cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval nor can they implement legislation. Your hatred for Bush/Cheney is nothing but partisan bs which is typical of the radical left not independents. Bush had a Democratic Congress from January 2007 until the end of his term which included all of 2007 and 2008 which you want to ignore.

Further you want to give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, when did that start happening and who was in charge of the Congress?

You now want to blame Trump for raising the deficit when most of the 2018 deficit was debt service on the debt Trump inherited and mandatory entitlement increases created by Congress. Civics would help someone like you and help your credibility.

It does appear that you don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. We pay debt service not deficit service.

Your support for Obama is staggering but he is out of office. Deficits aren't inherited especially since Bush had no approved budget for 2009 and the Obama stimulus didn't create the shovel ready jobs thus new taxpayers. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
you need to get out of the past and get a civics education, presidents cannot spend a dime without congressional approval nor can they implement legislation. Your hatred for bush/cheney is nothing but partisan bs which is typical of the radical left not independents. Bush had a democratic congress from january 2007 until the end of his term which included all of 2007 and 2008 which you want to ignore.

Further you want to give obama credit for lowering the deficit, when did that start happening and who was in charge of the congress?

You now want to blame trump for raising the deficit when most of the 2018 deficit was debt service on the debt trump inherited and mandatory entitlement increases created by congress. Civics would help someone like you and help your credibility.

It does appear that you don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. We pay debt service not deficit service.

Your support for obama is staggering but he is out of office. Deficits aren't inherited especially since bush had no approved budget for 2009 and the obama stimulus didn't create the shovel ready jobs thus new taxpayers. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

FACT: republicans = higher deficits!
 
FACT: republicans = higher deficits!

Right and the Democratic Controlled Congress had absolutely nothing to do with any deficit nor the Republican controlled Congress with reducing it. Basic civics doesn't exist in your world. Fact, Clinton had a Republican Congress most of his term, Fact, the Obama had trillion dollar deficits with his Democratic Congress. fact, Congress approves the spending and controls the legislation
 
Right and the Democratic Controlled Congress had absolutely nothing to do with any deficit nor the Republican controlled Congress with reducing it. Basic civics doesn't exist in your world. Fact, Clinton had a Republican Congress most of his term, Fact, the Obama had trillion dollar deficits with his Democratic Congress. fact, Congress approves the spending and controls the legislation

You show your ignorance of Governement, not even understanding how the budgeting process works.:roll:

https://www.thoughtco.com/approving-the-u-s-federal-budget-3321456

House and Senate Work Out Differences in Conference Committee
Since the spending bills are once again being debated and amended separately, House and Senate versions will have to go through the same conference committee process as the Budget Resolution. The conferees have to agree on one version of each bill capable of passing in both the House and Senate by a majority vote.

Full House and Senate Consider Conference Reports
Once the conference committees have forwarded their reports to the full House and Senate, they must be approved by a majority vote.


The Budget Act stipulates that the House should have given final approval to all of the spending bills by June 30.

President May Sign or Veto Any or All of the Appropriations Bills
As spelled out in the Constitution, the President has ten days in which to decide: (1) to sign the bill, thereby making it law; (2) to veto the bill, thereby sending it back to Congress and requiring much of the process to begin again with respect the programs covered by that bill; or (3) to allow the bill to become law without his signature, thereby making it law but doing so without his express approval.
 
You show your ignorance of Governement, not even understanding how the budgeting process works.:roll:

https://www.thoughtco.com/approving-the-u-s-federal-budget-3321456

House and Senate Work Out Differences in Conference Committee
Since the spending bills are once again being debated and amended separately, House and Senate versions will have to go through the same conference committee process as the Budget Resolution. The conferees have to agree on one version of each bill capable of passing in both the House and Senate by a majority vote.

Full House and Senate Consider Conference Reports
Once the conference committees have forwarded their reports to the full House and Senate, they must be approved by a majority vote.


The Budget Act stipulates that the House should have given final approval to all of the spending bills by June 30.

President May Sign or Veto Any or All of the Appropriations Bills
As spelled out in the Constitution, the President has ten days in which to decide: (1) to sign the bill, thereby making it law; (2) to veto the bill, thereby sending it back to Congress and requiring much of the process to begin again with respect the programs covered by that bill; or (3) to allow the bill to become law without his signature, thereby making it law but doing so without his express approval.

What part of that long post of yours disproves my statement that Congress approves the budget and no President can spend a dime without a budget or Congressional authorization through a CR

You seem to be clueless even about the information you post. Bush had no budget for 2009 and operated on Continuing resolutions based upon 2008 numbers yet is charged with the deficit for 2009. I even pointed out that TARP, a LOAN, was included in the CBO PROJECTIONS, and TARP was repaid later in 2009 AFTER Bush left office thus reducing that deficit projection. The 2009 deficit was affected by the failure of the Obama stimulus and the loss of 4 million taxpayers which you want to ignore.

Your media reports and PROJECTIONS never trump the official data and context. Please stop embarrassing yourself
 
1) Cut Fed employees by 25%

Actually, of the three listed "ideas", this is the least dumb. However, you offer no plan for how to offer government services with less people. This part is typical conservative blather, really about hating government, though, and not an attempt at being rational.

2) Cut ALL welfare and payments to illegal aliens

Are we paying illegal aliens? I find it strange and troubling that conservatives hate that charity is given to the poorest people but they won't lift a finger to stop their exploitation by American businesses.

When you are as motivated to punish the rich for drawing slave labor to this country with ILLEGAL jobs as you are motivated to punish the slaves for accepting work so unrewarding that they must also seek government charity, you might sound rational.

Greedy and dumb are a volitile combination. You should pick one.

3) Cut all foreign military bases to about 5 world wide.

Doing that would be politically disastrous. The repubs would go ape****. Besides, the vacuum formed by our exit would be filled by China, Russia or worse. It would cost us dearly to be so careless as to upset a balance established over decades.

If you want to cut military spending, we should do it intelligently, by establishing and reaping the dividends of peace. Just abandoning our allies would cause another world war.
 
Actually, of the three listed "ideas", this is the least dumb. However, you offer no plan for how to offer government services with less people. This part is typical conservative blather, really about hating government, though, and not an attempt at being rational.



Are we paying illegal aliens? I find it strange and troubling that conservatives hate that charity is given to the poorest people but they won't lift a finger to stop their exploitation by American businesses.

When you are as motivated to punish the rich for drawing slave labor to this country with ILLEGAL jobs as you are motivated to punish the slaves for accepting work so unrewarding that they must also seek government charity, you might sound rational.

Greedy and dumb are a volitile combination. You should pick one.



Doing that would be politically disastrous. The repubs would go ape****. Besides, the vacuum formed by our exit would be filled by China, Russia or worse. It would cost us dearly to be so careless as to upset a balance established over decades.

If you want to cut military spending, we should do it intelligently, by establishing and reaping the dividends of peace. Just abandoning our allies would cause another world war.

It is always easy to defeat a Progressive/Liberal by simply posting official data as it confuses and frustrates them. It also shows how partisan and poorly informed most truly are. Progressives/Liberals always run when challenged with data and yet continue to stick to their talking points and loyalty to a failed ideology. The Federal Govt. has a certain role much of which is ignored by the left who always wants federal bureaucrats to overturn what they cannot sell in their state and local communities.
 
It is always easy to defeat a Progressive/Liberal by simply posting official data as it confuses and frustrates them. It also shows how partisan and poorly informed most truly are. Progressives/Liberals always run when challenged with data and yet continue to stick to their talking points and loyalty to a failed ideology. The Federal Govt. has a certain role much of which is ignored by the left who always wants federal bureaucrats to overturn what they cannot sell in their state and local communities.

It's not lost on me that you posted no data, just random bigotry. Why don't you come back after you figure out what you're trying to say. For now, it just sounds like empty blather.
 
It's not lost on me that you posted no data, just random bigotry. Why don't you come back after you figure out what you're trying to say. For now, it just sounds like empty blather.

I continue to always post data which apparently is something you don't even recognize and even give the links. You want Treasury data go to bea.gov, you want unemployment/employment data go to bls.gov but doubt you want either as obviously you prefer media spin to the official data that taxpayers have to pay debt service on. Tell me what data you want and I will give you the link, give you the actual data to support my claim. You want me out of here, then ask for the data, prove that data wrong and I will be gone!
 
It's not lost on me that you posted no data, just random bigotry. Why don't you come back after you figure out what you're trying to say. For now, it just sounds like empty blather.

What truly is empty blather is your rhetoric and the opinions you post from media sites. Official federal data is not blather, that is reality. I would highly suggest a civics class which is sorely lacking by the left in this forum. We have three EQUAL branches of the Federal Govt. and a Constitution that provides what that Federal Govt. is to do. We then have state and local governments with certain responsibilities as well. You prefer giving social responsibilities to a federal bureaucrat miles and miles away vs your own state and local representatives closest to the problem. You also have no understanding of the state and local departments and budget either. In other words you buy what you are told and ignore even basic ccivics
 
It is always easy to defeat a Progressive/Liberal by simply posting official data as it confuses and frustrates them. It also shows how partisan and poorly informed most truly are. Progressives/Liberals always run when challenged with data and yet continue to stick to their talking points and loyalty to a failed ideology. The Federal Govt. has a certain role much of which is ignored by the left who always wants federal bureaucrats to overturn what they cannot sell in their state and local communities.

Yes, official data like the Trump skyrocketing deficit. This really confuses Liberals. They just can't understand how the Republicans can continue this song-and-dance of Trickle-Down-Economics - giving huge tax cuts to billionaires.
 
Yes, official data like the Trump skyrocketing deficit. This really confuses Liberals. They just can't understand how the Republicans can continue this song-and-dance of Trickle-Down-Economics - giving huge tax cuts to billionaires.

Do you just go around spouting out liberal talking points without even examining the facts. Trickle-Down-Economics? Wow there is an imbecilic blast from the past. The Trump tax cut is hardly a tax cut for the rich. Something difficult not to do with the lefts tendency to only tax the upper half of the income scale and their tendency to declare everyone above median income rich. EVERY tax cut has been vilified by the left as a tax cut for the rich. It gets old. Change the record.

What makes you think it is your right to call for higher taxation on any group of people you feel make an easy target. You (and the government) have no right to a disproportionate taxation and benefit structure based solely on the assumption you feel we would all be better served if you decided how to spend the wealth earned by the sweat of another's brows.
 
Do you just go around spouting out liberal talking points without even examining the facts. Trickle-Down-Economics? Wow there is an imbecilic blast from the past. The Trump tax cut is hardly a tax cut for the rich. Something difficult not to do with the lefts tendency to only tax the upper half of the income scale and their tendency to declare everyone above median income rich. EVERY tax cut has been vilified by the left as a tax cut for the rich. It gets old. Change the record.

What makes you think it is your right to call for higher taxation on any group of people you feel make an easy target. You (and the government) have no right to a disproportionate taxation and benefit structure based solely on the assumption you feel we would all be better served if you decided how to spend the wealth earned by the sweat of another's brows.

That's a good one LibDave! Even in Republican circles, it is thought that Trump's tax cuts favored the rich, by a 2:1 margin.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts-rich-americans-republicans-1133372

An overwhelming majority of voters believe that President Donald Trump’s tax cuts benefit the wealthy instead of average Americans, found an internal poll commissioned by the Republican National Committee, first obtained by Bloomberg News.

The survey found that 61 percent of all respondents thought the tax cuts benefited “large corporations and rich Americans” over “middle-class families.” Just 30 percent said the reverse.


Eighty three percent of the benefits from the tax bill go to the top 0.1%...
 
Yes, official data like the Trump skyrocketing deficit. This really confuses Liberals. They just can't understand how the Republicans can continue this song-and-dance of Trickle-Down-Economics - giving huge tax cuts to billionaires.

What I don't understand is why you never back any of your statements up with facts and how someone who claims to be an independent is so partisan and so full of hatred that they refuse to do research. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true, just repetitive and in the case of the attacks on Trump, WRONG
 
That's a good one LibDave! Even in Republican circles, it is thought that Trump's tax cuts favored the rich, by a 2:1 margin.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts-rich-americans-republicans-1133372

An overwhelming majority of voters believe that President Donald Trump’s tax cuts benefit the wealthy instead of average Americans, found an internal poll commissioned by the Republican National Committee, first obtained by Bloomberg News.

The survey found that 61 percent of all respondents thought the tax cuts benefited “large corporations and rich Americans” over “middle-class families.” Just 30 percent said the reverse.


Eighty three percent of the benefits from the tax bill go to the top 0.1%...

And yet federal income, excise, payroll estate tax revenues are up as are State sales, property and excise taxes with those tax cuts, how can that be? How does allowing people to keep more of what they earn hurt you, your family, or the country?

How much of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes, Media? Another question you refuse to answer
 
Back
Top Bottom