• 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!

Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion

OrphanSlug said:
So which is it?
Click to expand...

Gov't spending is between 20-30% of GDP but not all Gov't spending is good and necessary, why don't you figure out which gov't spending is authorized by the Constitution and our Founders. Yes, I was wrong about it not being part of the GDP math, that was a mistake on my part as I know better
 
OrphanSlug said:
So which is it?
Click to expand...

Gov't spending is between 20-30% of GDP but not all Gov't spending is good and necessary, why don't you figure out which gov't spending is authorized by the Constitution and our Founders. Yes, I was wrong about it not being part of the GDP math, that was a mistake on my part as I know better
 
Conservative said:
You are being bought and paid for by the radical left and blue state governments totally ignoring what is going on in the nation. It is time to address your own state and local problems vs. buying the leftwing spin on why the federal gov't needs more revenue

Cal Thomas: Florida’s economy is booming while blue states like New York are mired in debt -- why is that? | Fox News
Click to expand...
I have to laugh at that opinion piece whose conclusion is that people are moving from NY to FL to flee high taxes -- ignoring the fact that NY retirees have been moving to Florida ever since air conditioning became common. They do so not to escape taxes but because it is warm.

Comparing the two economies, NY has nearly twice the GDP per capita as FL. In terms of education, NY is #9 and FL #29. That's those taxes at play.

NY has a 20% lower infant mortality rate than FL and better access to health care.
 
MTAtech said:
I have to laugh at that opinion piece whose conclusion is that people are moving from NY to FL to flee high taxes -- ignoring the fact that NY retirees have been moving to Florida ever since air conditioning became common. They do so not to escape taxes but because it is warm.

Comparing the two economies, NY has nearly twice the GDP per capita as FL. In terms of education, NY is #9 and FL #29. That's those taxes at play.

NY has a 20% lower infant mortality rate than FL and better access to health care.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone move to a high tax state for retirement, something apparently you will never understand but may when you get a job and start paying those taxes you support

what you are seeing in New York is typical liberalism as they are running out of other people's money to spend. the cost of liberalism is on full display now that the cap on state and local tax deductions are hitting the federal tax returns. Love it, ABOUT TIME
 
Conservative said:
Why would anyone move to a high tax state for retirement, something apparently you will never understand but may when you get a job and start paying those taxes you support

what you are seeing in New York is typical liberalism as they are running out of other people's money to spend. the cost of liberalism is on full display now that the cap on state and local tax deductions are hitting the federal tax returns. Love it, ABOUT TIME
Click to expand...
Your reply displays lack of reading comprehension. The correlation between retirees relocating has everything to do with warm weather and little to do with taxes. That narrative is ideologically based. As proof, high tax California has net growth in population.
 
MTAtech said:
Your reply displays lack of reading comprehension. The correlation between retirees relocating has everything to do with warm weather and little to do with taxes. That narrative is ideologically based. As proof, high tax California has net growth in population.
Click to expand...

You radicals are the most arrogant people I have ever seen believing that people are so stupid that they move to low income, states with major pollution, no health insurance and no job opportunities

Yes, California continues to grow and the state continues to run out of other people's money to spend as people are escaping California being replaced by illegals and people looking for all those "free benefits" the state offers funded by people who actually pay taxes. Leading the nation in poverty, homeless, having the lowest quality of life, highest cost of living and worst wage gap in the country seems to be the economic results you want for the rest of the country
 
Conservative said:
You radicals are the most arrogant people I have ever seen believing that people are so stupid that they move to low income, states with major pollution, no health insurance and no job opportunities

Yes, California continues to grow and the state continues to run out of other people's money to spend as people are escaping California being replaced by illegals and people looking for all those "free benefits" the state offers funded by people who actually pay taxes. Leading the nation in poverty, homeless, having the lowest quality of life, highest cost of living and worst wage gap in the country seems to be the economic results you want for the rest of the country
Click to expand...

No matter how you try to rationalize it, California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back in the form of welfare, medical, transfer payments, and infrastructure.
 
Kushinator said:
No matter how you try to rationalize it, California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back in the form of welfare, medical, transfer payments, and infrastructure.
Click to expand...


So what? You don't seem to grasp the difference between federal taxes and federal mandates, expenses, and federal law. I seem to understand what you don't, federal mandates are paid by federal taxpayers have have nothing to do with income going to the federal gov't from taxes
 
Conservative said:
So what?
Click to expand...

California is a net contributor, where as Texas is a net taker. You would think that with such low taxes and regulations, economic activity would accelerate to the point where Texas was a net contributor... but that's not the case, as is the majority of Republican strongholds.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between federal taxes and federal mandates, expenses, and federal law.
Click to expand...

California receives way more from the federal government than any other state in the union. Yet for some reason (even with state and local deductions for federal taxes), they are a net contributor.

I seem to understand what you don't, federal mandates are paid by federal taxpayers have have nothing to do with income going to the federal gov't from taxes
Click to expand...

I can point out that these states are not capable of contributing their fair share to the federal government, and so they must be subsidized by wealthy blue states.

Why are red states so poor?
 
Kushinator said:
California is a net contributor, where as Texas is a net taker. You would think that with such low taxes and regulations, economic activity would accelerate to the point where Texas was a net contributor... but that's not the case, as is the majority of Republican strongholds.



California receives way more from the federal government than any other state in the union. Yet for some reason (even with state and local deductions for federal taxes), they are a net contributor.



I can point out that these states are not capable of contributing their fair share to the federal government, and so they must be subsidized by wealthy blue states.

Why are red states so poor?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, TX and California do not take more than they are authorized to receive by federal law and mandate to take and their taxes that go to the federal gov't has nothing to do with federal mandates, federal expenses, federal retirees, military bases, etc.

Typical leftwing rhetoric from someone who claims to so smart and yet doesn't show it

State Smart: Federal Funds in Texas
 
Conservative said:
Irrelevant, TX and California do not take more than they are authorized
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant to this discussion, and it is a strawman to respond as though i claimed any state get's more than what's authorized. There are makers and takers with respect to U.S. states and Federal revenue. Republican states tend to be needy taker states while Democrat states are providing the funds red states need to function. Imagine the economies of these poor red states without federal contributions.

Typical leftwing rhetoric from someone who claims to so smart and yet doesn't show it
Click to expand...

blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinion.
 
Kushinator said:
It's not irrelevant to this discussion, and it is a strawman to respond as though i claimed any state get's more than what's authorized. There are makers and takers with respect to U.S. states and Federal revenue. Republican states tend to be needy taker states while Democrat states are providing the funds red states need to function. Imagine the economies of these poor red states without federal contributions.



blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinion.
Click to expand...

Another book smart, street stupid comment which is becoming the norm from you. Federal Taxes are supposedly paid by income earning Americans as well as use taxes for gasoline, etc so California with the most population is going to pay more to the federal gov't for those issues, they also get the most back because they have the most in need and your analysis is poor and typical. I don't understand why anyone would respect your opinion and the only ones that do are the leftwing minions that you are used to bullying

Not once have I made an issue out of California getting back the most in the nation because federal mandates and expenses are to be paid by federal taxes. The comment giver vs. taker is nothing but leftwing bull**** and designed to appeal to the ignorant most of whom respect you
 
Conservative said:
Another book smart, street stupid comment
Click to expand...

blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion.

Federal Taxes are supposedly paid by income earning Americans as well as use taxes for gasoline, etc so California with the most population is going to pay more to the federal gov't for those issues, they also get the most back because they have the most in need and your analysis is poor and typical.
Click to expand...

What you haven't been able to reconcile due to dishonesty is that they get more than they send. Put it another way... if each state were to only receive exactly what they pay to the federal government, blue states would be able to fully fund their federal mandates and give their citizens a tax cut. The red states would face a funding shortfall, and their economies would contract on par with the reduction of federal transfers.

This is a rather important point to understand.

I don't understand why anyone would respect your opinion and the only ones that do are the leftwing minions that you are used to bullying
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinions.

The comment giver vs. taker is nothing but leftwing bull****
Click to expand...

It is simply a matter of fact. Red states depend on blue states for funding. Without said funding, their economies would contract.
 
Kushinator said:
blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion.



What you haven't been able to reconcile due to dishonesty is that they get more than they send. Put it another way... if each state were to only receive exactly what they pay to the federal government, blue states would be able to fully fund their federal mandates and give their citizens a tax cut. The red states would face a funding shortfall, and their economies would contract on par with the reduction of federal transfers.

This is a rather important point to understand.



Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about or respects your opinions.



It is simply a matter of fact. Red states depend on blue states for funding. Without said funding, their economies would contract.
Click to expand...

Stop being an ass, it makes no difference what they send to the federal gov't, what makes a difference is what the laws fund. do you think it is state taxpayer responsibility to pay for Federal mandates and expenses? Red states depend just like blue states on getting federal dollars for federal programs. Go back to your books and learn something
 
Conservative said:
Stop being an ass, it makes no difference what they send to the federal gov't, what makes a difference is what the laws fund. do you think it is state taxpayer responsibility to pay for Federal mandates and expenses? Red states depend just like blue states on getting federal dollars for federal programs. Go back to your books and learn something
Click to expand...

You must repeated the same ****. Failure to respond to my statements is your concession... Unless you want another shot!?!?
 
Conservative said:
You radicals are the most arrogant people I have ever seen believing that people are so stupid that they move to low income, states with major pollution, no health insurance and no job opportunities

Yes, California continues to grow and the state continues to run out of other people's money to spend as people are escaping California being replaced by illegals and people looking for all those "free benefits" the state offers funded by people who actually pay taxes. Leading the nation in poverty, homeless, having the lowest quality of life, highest cost of living and worst wage gap in the country seems to be the economic results you want for the rest of the country
Click to expand...

I have to laugh again at your feeble attempt no resist admitting that you are wrong -- which is typical for you. Florida isn't another country. They must adhere to the federal pollution standards as the rest of the country. Retirees that relocate to Florida, typically take their health insurance retirement benefits with them. When over 65, they have Medicare -- so they don't need state health care and since they are retirees, don't need jobs.

Your narrative that people are fleeing California and being replaced by undocumented immigrants looking for free benefits is a work of fiction. California is a rich state that Kushinator already stated sends more money to the rest of the country than it receives -- and they're able to provide those "free benefits" to boot.
 
MTAtech said:
I have to laugh again at your feeble attempt no resist admitting that you are wrong -- which is typical for you. Florida isn't another country. They must adhere to the federal pollution standards as the rest of the country. Retirees that relocate to Florida, typically take their health insurance retirement benefits with them. When over 65, they have Medicare -- so they don't need state health care and since they are retirees, don't need jobs.

Your narrative that people are fleeing California and being replaced by undocumented immigrants looking for free benefits is a work of fiction. California is a rich state that Kushinator already stated sends more money to the rest of the country than it receives -- and they're able to provide those "free benefits" to boot.
Click to expand...
Sending money? You mean paying taxes? OMG, imagine that, a state of 38 million having more taxpayers than other states? Wow, you are brilliant but keep diverting from the issue and calling acceptance of federal tax dollars for federal mandates takers. That just makes you a typical uneducated liberal and poorly informed

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
Sending money? You mean paying taxes? OMG, imagine that, a state of 38 million having more taxpayers than other states? Wow, you are brilliant but keep diverting from the issue and calling acceptance of federal tax dollars for federal mandates takers. That just makes you a typical uneducated liberal and poorly informed
Click to expand...
A more dishonest statement I cannot recall. Yes, California has millions of taxpayers but also millions of beneficiaries of government programs. Looking at one side of the balance sheet while ignoring the other side is either dishonesty or ignorance.

While you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid admitting the obvious— California pays more in income taxes and payroll taxes than residents receive in federal services and social programs, it’s still a fact.
 
MTAtech said:
A more dishonest statement I cannot recall. Yes, California has millions of taxpayers but also millions of beneficiaries of government programs. Looking at one side of the balance sheet while ignoring the other side is either dishonesty or ignorance.

While you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid admitting the obvious— California pays more in income taxes and payroll taxes than residents receive in federal services and social programs, it’s still a fact.
Click to expand...
This is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard from you liberals showing just how intellectually dishonest you are there is absolutely no comparison between tax revenue going to the federal government vs. Federal mandates and expenses going back to the States.

California gets by far the largest dollars back for federal expenses at the state level and I don't have a problem with that but I don't call California takers getting paid for federal laws and expenses

The more you post the more you look like a walking advertisement for school vouchers and an advertisement against whatever education system you came out of

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
This is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard from you liberals showing just how intellectually dishonest you are
Click to expand...

blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion.

there is absolutely no comparison between tax revenue going to the federal government vs. Federal mandates and expenses going back to the States.
Click to expand...

This isn't a counterargument. We have done just that and are able to compare how much a state sends to the Federal government relative to how much goes back. California can fully fund all of their federal mandates... Texas cannot.

California gets by far the largest dollars back for federal expenses at the state level and I don't have a problem with that but I don't call California takers getting paid for federal laws and expenses
Click to expand...

You can't call California a taker state. They pay their fair share and then some. For some reason, you believe blue states should subsidize poor red states. Why can't these states take on more responsibility?

And we didn't even get into deficits necessary to bridge the funding gap.

The more you post the more you look like a walking advertisement for school vouchers and an advertisement against whatever education system you came out of
Click to expand...

Nobody respects or gives a **** about the opinion of a mindless partisan hack.
 
Visbek said:
US News: National debt tops $22 trillion for first time, after Trump tax cut

Treasury Department:
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

$16,157,240,020,401 in Treasuries
$5,855,600,871,283 in Intragovernmental

Needless to say, the big drivers these days are the Trump tax cuts, and last year's spending bills.

The most likely short-term impact will be an increase in interest rates. In the medium term, it will probably make it harder to borrow in a recession.

Someone better hope that MMT is accurate....
Click to expand...


I have found that the only time politicians and some political pundits care about the deficit is when the money is being spent on things they don't want. For example republicans will spend every cent they can on the military while bitching about how social security, food stamps and welfare will bankrupt. While democrats want socialized medicine, free college for everyone and other social spending while bitching how a wall on the border costs too much money.
 
Kushinator said:
blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion.



This isn't a counterargument. We have done just that and are able to compare how much a state sends to the Federal government relative to how much goes back. California can fully fund all of their federal mandates... Texas cannot.



You can't call California a taker state. They pay their fair share and then some. For some reason, you believe blue states should subsidize poor red states. Why can't these states take on more responsibility?

And we didn't even get into deficits necessary to bridge the funding gap.



Nobody respects or gives a **** about the opinion of a mindless partisan hack.
Click to expand...

So actually paying their taxes is doing their fair share? Can you point to red states not doing their share as well?

What a dumb ass argument showing proof that you don't have a fricken clue as to what you are talking about. Are you claiming that Democrats aren't in those red states getting the money?

are you claiming that state citizens should fund federal laws, mandates, and federal expenses?

Seems like for someone so arrogant and such a legend in one's own mind you would know the difference between taxes and mandates but apparently not

No one really cares about what you say as evidenced by the lack of likes you are getting on this issue from people who matter, not the minions you are used to bullying.
 
Conservative said:
So actually paying their taxes is doing their fair share? Can you point to red states not doing their share as well?

What a dumb ass argument showing proof that you don't have a fricken clue as to what you are talking about. Are you claiming that Democrats aren't in those red states getting the money?

are you claiming that state citizens should fund federal laws, mandates, and federal expenses?

Seems like for someone so arrogant and such a legend in one's own mind you would know the difference between taxes and mandates but apparently not

No one really cares about what you say as evidenced by the lack of likes you are getting on this issue from people who matter, not the minions you are used to bullying.
Click to expand...
Maybe if they put the dislikes back on here people could judge your posts and we all would see just how many likes and dislikes you would have.
I don't think you would have many likes

It is time that the Federal government funded the programs they mandate and if a state wants to enhance that program then their state tax payers should fund that part of the program and then after the Fed. funded their part and money left over should go back to the states on a per person basis
and IF the Red states need more money they will have to raise their state taxes to cover it and the larger Blue states would be getting more of their money back from the Federal government and they could cut their state taxes
have a nice day
 
MTAtech said:
A more dishonest statement I cannot recall. Yes, California has millions of taxpayers but also millions of beneficiaries of government programs. Looking at one side of the balance sheet while ignoring the other side is either dishonesty or ignorance.

While you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid admitting the obvious— California pays more in income taxes and payroll taxes than residents receive in federal services and social programs, it’s still a fact.
Click to expand...

Your problem continues to be ignoring the items on a balance sheet, payments for federal programs has absolutely nothing to do with the income taxes you or anyone else pays. Also apparently in your world democrats don't live in Red states or are you suggesting that it is just Republicans in Red states that get federal tax dollars?

California pays more in federal income taxes because of population, they get more back in federal tax dollars because of Federal mandates and expenses due to federal law and creation of federal employees. the two aren't comparable no matter how you want to spin it
 
I really look forward to people living in Blue states having their high state and local taxes capped as a deduction from their federal tax liabilities. It is about time the people in high taxed states finally understand the cost of those "free" social programs the left promotes.

What the radical left doesn't understand is that when the Federal Gov't mandates a program or has a federal expense it is funded by Federal taxpayer dollars no more or no less and that is why I have zero problem with California getting hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal taxpayers for those programs and expenses. Right now it is over 100 billion more than the second most populated state TX. The fact that California labor force being higher than TX would mean more Federal Income taxes paid to the federal gov't but that has nothing to do with the mandates and dollars going back no matter how the left wants to spin it

The term taker is used when referring to getting federal tax dollars for federal expenses, wonder why a state and local citizen shouldn't TAKE federal dollars to fund federal expenses and mandates?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom