Deficit-swelling Trump White House plans to use deficit against Democrats

MTAtech · Mar 13, 2019

jonny5 said:
You can not borrow money to spend on not taking money from people. Thats ridiculous. Weve borrowed trillions and trillions, mostly on handing out money to slackers. And it achieved nothing. People are still poor. Healthcare is still expensive.

I know the right wing is obsessed with "slackers" and what Mitt Romney called them, "freeloaders," but the biggest part of the federal budget is Social Security and Medicare, which one needs to have had a job to receive. We haven't borrowed to pay for Social Security. In fact, we borrow FROM Social Security.

Number three in spending is defense. So, who are the slackers that you refer? The workers paying into SSA and Medicare or defense?

Conservative · Mar 13, 2019

MTAtech said:
I know the right wing is obsessed with "slackers" and what Mitt Romney called them, "freeloaders," but the biggest part of the federal budget is Social Security and Medicare, which one needs to have had a job to receive. We haven't borrowed to pay for Social Security. In fact, we borrow FROM Social Security.

Number three in spending is defense. So, who are the slackers that you refer? The workers paying into SSA and Medicare or defense?

Why aren't you asking your liberal bureaucrats why they took SS and Medicare funding and spent it on other budget items rather than Medicare and SS? Workers paying into SS and Medicare aren't funding the Federal gov't they are funding their retirement and healthcare. Federal expenses have been posted over and over again only to be ignored. the Federal bureaucrats have BORROWED TRILLIONS from the SS trust fund and what did they do with the money?

Why aren't you after the 50% of income earners that aren't paying any Federal Income taxes to fund things like national defense and veterans affairs? Keep running from that issue

National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Transportation-EXCISE
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Medicare-FICA
Income security-FIT
Social security-FICA
Veterans benefits and services-FIT
Administration of justice-FIT
General Government-FIT
Net interest-FIT

Conservative · Mar 13, 2019

MTAtech said:
I know the right wing is obsessed with "slackers" and what Mitt Romney called them, "freeloaders," but the biggest part of the federal budget is Social Security and Medicare, which one needs to have had a job to receive. We haven't borrowed to pay for Social Security. In fact, we borrow FROM Social Security.

Number three in spending is defense. So, who are the slackers that you refer? The workers paying into SSA and Medicare or defense?

What you and the rest of the radical left want to ignore just like you want to ignore the purpose of the taxes you pay

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

Borrowing from the SS and Medicare Trust fund leaving that trust fund with IOU's has to be paid when those IOU's come do. How does the govt. that is running deficits because of borrowing those funds make those payments?? you got it, raising taxes again or printing money to make up for their abuse of the trust fund dollars collected and spent

jonny5 · Mar 14, 2019

MTAtech said:
I know the right wing is obsessed with "slackers" and what Mitt Romney called them, "freeloaders," but the biggest part of the federal budget is Social Security and Medicare, which one needs to have had a job to receive. We haven't borrowed to pay for Social Security. In fact, we borrow FROM Social Security.

Number three in spending is defense. So, who are the slackers that you refer? The workers paying into SSA and Medicare or defense?

SS is the least of our problems for now. Healthcare, food stamps, income support, education grants, and on and on all forms of wealth redistrubution, funneling taxes from the rich to people not pulling their weight. The federal govt spends over 1 trillion on major health care programs alone. There is your entire deficit. As you point out, 47% of wage earners dont even pay income tax, which is supposed to fund defense, justice, science, consumer protection, etc.

MTAtech · Mar 14, 2019

jonny5 said:
SS is the least of our problems for now. Healthcare, food stamps, income support, education grants, and on and on all forms of wealth redistrubution, funneling taxes from the rich to people not pulling their weight. The federal govt spends over 1 trillion on major health care programs alone. There is your entire deficit. As you point out, 47% of wage earners dont even pay income tax, which is supposed to fund defense, justice, science, consumer protection, etc.

[SARCASM]You have clearly identified the real problem, taxing rich people too much so that the less fortunate can get medical care and eat meals. We don't really have to be concerned that the rich have increased their income by five times in 30 years, while most others are basically stagnant. It's the slackers.

Let's not focus on the fact that the 47% that don't pay federal income tax don't earn enough to make a sizable contribution to the Treasury. Tax'em anyway.[/SARCASM]

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

jonny5 said:
I can support any cuts you put forward. But we pay enough taxes. No need for a new 1 to 2 percent.

we all agree that we need to cut spending and lower the debt
have you got a better idea?
as I said a 1% sales tax would be just for lowering the debt and when it was paid off the sales tax would be discontinued
With a sales tax that everybody pays with no exceptions and not being able to deduct it from your taxes Everybody would be paying it and just about everybody got some type of benefit from us putting a lot of things on the debt
so everybody should pay it and as I said make it just to pay off the debt and when the debt is paid off it would be taken off.
Have a nice day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

Conservative said:
LOL, borrowing money to allow people to keep more of theirs? Where in the hell did you get your education? Same tired old leftwing rhetoric as the federal gov't's roles are distorted again as usual by radicals who think that the states are going to allow their citizens to die because some federal bureaucrat doesn't spend enough money in the name of compassion.

Always promoting higher taxes on those evil rich people, aren't you? Think the rich are going to be able to fund your spending appetite? What about the approximately 50% of income earners how pay ZERO in federal income taxes? Why are you supporting this reality?

the Federal government has to fund the programs they mandate, we have to cut what the fed. gives back to the states over and above these mandated programs and not have the federal government mandate any more programs
and IF a state has to raise their taxes because they aren't getting as much back from the fed. to run any other programs they want to give their people so be it.
I would like to see just what the states that get more back from the fed then they pay in do when that money is cut.
and again you keep talking about the 50% of the people who don't make enough money to live on not paying FIT and not saying a word about the 50% or more Corporations making millions and billions in US profits not paying any
IF a family of five is doing everything they can to just get by and some of these people are working two jobs and the spouse is also working and are still at or below poverty level how do you expect them to pay a income tax
Yes you would rather see these people get poorer by paying a FIT and the big corps get richer and not pay any
Yes typical Republican take from the poor and give to the rich
Have a nice day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

Conservative said:
Why aren't you asking your liberal bureaucrats why they took SS and Medicare funding and spent it on other budget items rather than Medicare and SS? Workers paying into SS and Medicare aren't funding the Federal gov't they are funding their retirement and healthcare. Federal expenses have been posted over and over again only to be ignored. the Federal bureaucrats have BORROWED TRILLIONS from the SS trust fund and what did they do with the money?

Why aren't you after the 50% of income earners that aren't paying any Federal Income taxes to fund things like national defense and veterans affairs? Keep running from that issue

National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Transportation-EXCISE
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Medicare-FICA
Income security-FIT
Social security-FICA
Veterans benefits and services-FIT
Administration of justice-FIT
General Government-FIT
Net interest-FIT

First of all we have a law that states that the SS fund money in excess of what they pay out has to be put into secure bonds that only the Federal government can buy.
if they made it where that money could be put into secure bonds and get more ROI the SS system might be around longer then it might be.
and IF they had not borrowed that money they would have had to raise taxes or borrowed more money from other countries like China to pay our bills
You keep saying we need to cut taxes we also have to cut spending and not give so much money back to the states and if the states that get more back then they pay in have to raise their state taxes to fund extra programs they want to supply the people of the state with so be it
it is about time the states get back an equal amount percentage wise to what they pay in
that way the states that pay in the most would be getting back more and could cut their taxes and if a state wants to give their people more then they would have to raise their state taxes to pay for it.
Have a nice day

MTAtech · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
we all agree that we need to cut spending and lower the debt
have you got a better idea?
as I said a 1% sales tax would be just for lowering the debt and when it was paid off the sales tax would be discontinued
With a sales tax that everybody pays with no exceptions and not being able to deduct it from your taxes Everybody would be paying it and just about everybody got some type of benefit from us putting a lot of things on the debt
so everybody should pay it and as I said make it just to pay off the debt and when the debt is paid off it would be taken off.
Have a nice day

I disagree about a sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive -- they hit the middle class and poor the most, because they spend most of their income in consumption. It is far better to increase the top marginal tax-rate, which is far below historical levels.

MTAtech · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
First of all we have a law that states that the SS fund money in excess of what they pay out has to be put into secure bonds that only the Federal government can buy.
if they made it where that money could be put into secure bonds and get more ROI the SS system might be around longer then it might be.
and IF they had not borrowed that money they would have had to raise taxes or borrowed more money from other countries like China to pay our bills
You keep saying we need to cut taxes we also have to cut spending and not give so much money back to the states and if the states that get more back then they pay in have to raise their state taxes to fund extra programs they want to supply the people of the state with so be it
it is about time the states get back an equal amount percentage wise to what they pay in
that way the states that pay in the most would be getting back more and could cut their taxes and if a state wants to give their people more then they would have to raise their state taxes to pay for it.
Have a nice day

Giving money to the states is not a bad idea. Before Reagan, when the federal government was flush with money, there as a program called revenue sharing, which provided money to states. This really helped poor states. The idea behind revenue sharing is that the Feds are good at collecting taxes and the states are good at spending it on needed projects.

Conservative · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
First of all we have a law that states that the SS fund money in excess of what they pay out has to be put into secure bonds that only the Federal government can buy.
if they made it where that money could be put into secure bonds and get more ROI the SS system might be around longer then it might be.
and IF they had not borrowed that money they would have had to raise taxes or borrowed more money from other countries like China to pay our bills
You keep saying we need to cut taxes we also have to cut spending and not give so much money back to the states and if the states that get more back then they pay in have to raise their state taxes to fund extra programs they want to supply the people of the state with so be it
it is about time the states get back an equal amount percentage wise to what they pay in
that way the states that pay in the most would be getting back more and could cut their taxes and if a state wants to give their people more then they would have to raise their state taxes to pay for it.
Have a nice day

That is true HOWEVER those bonds have to be funded with cash so where does the money come from to fund those bonds when the gov't is already running a deficit. States paying into the gov't has nothing to do with SS and Medicare so again you show you are clueless as SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes and a pay as you go system. The trust fund if solvent shouldn't have any problem making payments and why is SS and Medicare money going out to the states for items other than funding SS and Medicare recipients?

You also have no idea what the FIT funds even though I have posted those items over and over again, none of which have anything to do with states receiving tax dollars for federally mandated programs and gov't expenses. States have military bases, gov't employees, gov't retirees, gov't mandated expenses. That impacts the percentage of revenue going to states with those issues including the state of California which by far gets the most money back. You for some reason want to equate those expenses with federal income tax revenue paid by population not line items in the budget. Are you truly this hardheaded that you don't understand the difference?

Keep showing your total and complete ignorance of the topic and this issue. You have a great day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

MTAtech said:
I disagree about a sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive -- they hit the middle class and poor the most, because they spend most of their income in consumption. It is far better to increase the top marginal tax-rate, which is far below historical levels.

Yes it is a regressive tax but everybody benefited from things that were put on the debt
This way everybody pays it off and there would be NO deducting it off anybodies income taxes and it would be in there that it would be repealed automatically when the debt is paid off.
have a nice day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

MTAtech said:
Giving money to the states is not a bad idea. Before Reagan, when the federal government was flush with money, there as a program called revenue sharing, which provided money to states. This really helped poor states. The idea behind revenue sharing is that the Feds are good at collecting taxes and the states are good at spending it on needed projects.

well we need to fund the programs the Federal government mandates I agree with that but why are some states getting MORE back then they pay in?
If we give them enough money to pay for the mandated programs then anything left over from that we give it back to the states on a percentage basis the larger states would be getting back some of what they pay in and not giving it to states that are now getting more back then they pay in
make it on a percentage basis so that all the states get back an equal percent that they pay in not some states getting more back then they pay in and larger states that have larger state taxes getting nothing back
then maybe those larger states could lower their state taxes and if the states that get more back now then they pay in would have to either cut some of the programs they give their people or raise their state taxes
Why do some people think it is fair that the larger states pay more in to the fed and not get anything back and the states that fund a lot of their state programs from getting money back from the fed?
This would make it more fair and the larger states could cut their state taxes and if a smaller state doesn't have the money to fund programs for their people they would have to raise their taxes to fund their programs
Sorry if it is fact that most of the states that get more back are red ( republican ) states and the ones that pay in more then they get back are Blue states

maybe then the politicians in the Red states wouldn't be buying votes with pork programs
Have a nice day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

Conservative said:
That is true HOWEVER those bonds have to be funded with cash so where does the money come from to fund those bonds when the gov't is already running a deficit. States paying into the gov't has nothing to do with SS and Medicare so again you show you are clueless as SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes and a pay as you go system. The trust fund if solvent shouldn't have any problem making payments and why is SS and Medicare money going out to the states for items other than funding SS and Medicare recipients?

You also have no idea what the FIT funds even though I have posted those items over and over again, none of which have anything to do with states receiving tax dollars for federally mandated programs and gov't expenses. States have military bases, gov't employees, gov't retirees, gov't mandated expenses. That impacts the percentage of revenue going to states with those issues including the state of California which by far gets the most money back. You for some reason want to equate those expenses with federal income tax revenue paid by population not line items in the budget. Are you truly this hardheaded that you don't understand the difference?

Keep showing your total and complete ignorance of the topic and this issue. You have a great day

Hello I have said many times pay back the SS fund and then sell those bonds and make sure they are put into a secure bond program and they could be making 5, 6, or 7 percent secure interest and the Fed would not be paying it what 1 percent.
It could be making a lot more money on secure investments then they are now.
and where did I ever say that states had anything to do with what the people receive back from their SS?
I said after the fed pays for mandated programs ( SS is separate and does not come out of FIT ) and anything that is left over should go back to the states on a percentage of what they pay in NOT some states getting MORE back then thay pay in
why do you think it is fair that some states get back MORE then they pay in and others don't get anything back?
didn't you say some thing about Politicians using this money to buy votes?
where do you think this money comes from?
have a nice day

Tbird19482 · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
well we need to fund the programs the Federal government mandates I agree with that but why are some states getting MORE back then they pay in?
If we give them enough money to pay for the mandated programs then anything left over from that we give it back to the states on a percentage basis the larger states would be getting back some of what they pay in and not giving it to states that are now getting more back then they pay in
make it on a percentage basis so that all the states get back an equal percent that they pay in not some states getting more back then they pay in and larger states that have larger state taxes getting nothing back
then maybe those larger states could lower their state taxes and if the states that get more back now then they pay in would have to either cut some of the programs they give their people or raise their state taxes
Why do some people think it is fair that the larger states pay more in to the fed and not get anything back and the states that fund a lot of their state programs from getting money back from the fed?
This would make it more fair and the larger states could cut their state taxes and if a smaller state doesn't have the money to fund programs for their people they would have to raise their taxes to fund their programs
Sorry if it is fact that most of the states that get more back are red ( republican ) states and the ones that pay in more then they get back are Blue states

maybe then the politicians in the Red states wouldn't be buying votes with pork programs
Have a nice day

PS
IF and only IF those mandated programs cost more then a state pays in so be it they wouldn't get anything over that
IF you pay into the Fed everybody should be getting something back
that is why I said they should divide up anything over what the mandated programs cost and return it back to the states on a percentage basis so that one state doesn't get more back then they pay in and other states would be getting atleast something back and not funding another state
IF your stste wants to have a program that is not a fed. mandated program thn they should fund it NOT another state
Have a nice day

Conservative · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
Hello I have said many times pay back the SS fund and then sell those bonds and make sure they are put into a secure bond program and they could be making 5, 6, or 7 percent secure interest and the Fed would not be paying it what 1 percent.
It could be making a lot more money on secure investments then they are now.
and where did I ever say that states had anything to do with what the people receive back from their SS?
I said after the fed pays for mandated programs ( SS is separate and does not come out of FIT ) and anything that is left over should go back to the states on a percentage of what they pay in NOT some states getting MORE back then thay pay in
why do you think it is fair that some states get back MORE then they pay in and others don't get anything back?
didn't you say some thing about Politicians using this money to buy votes?
where do you think this money comes from?
have a nice day

It is really hard dealing with uneducated hard headed people who have no understanding of what a federal expense is. Pretty simple question does a state with more federal employees, military bases, and retirees get more back in federal dollars than one without those items? The logic and common sense of some people and the liberal indoctrination creating the dumbing down of Americans is alive and well. I guess it is the state's responsibility to pay for those federal expenses in the minds of the radical leftists except of course when that state has to pay those expenses.

These threads are a walking advertisement for school vouchers and school choice as I cannot believe the arguments of some people. Where does the state get its money for federal expenses?? Hmmm, let me guess, LOL

Federal Income taxes fund the items I have listed over and over again but ignored. Approximately 50% of income earners pay ZERO in Federal Income taxes because of federal tax laws and yet the argument is states should get back in proportion of what they pay in Federal Income taxes, the cost of federal mandates is irrelevant. That is liberal logic and why liberals really shouldn't be allowed to vote

Conservative · Mar 14, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
PS
IF and only IF those mandated programs cost more then a state pays in so be it they wouldn't get anything over that
IF you pay into the Fed everybody should be getting something back
that is why I said they should divide up anything over what the mandated programs cost and return it back to the states on a percentage basis so that one state doesn't get more back then they pay in and other states would be getting atleast something back and not funding another state
IF your stste wants to have a program that is not a fed. mandated program thn they should fund it NOT another state
Have a nice day

What about the 50% of income earners that pay ZERO in federal income taxes, what should they get back? Why aren't these people paying something vs. the radical left calling on corporations and rich people to pay more?

What the state gets back out of federal income taxes are things like NATIONAL DEFENSE, a LEGAL SYSTEM, NASA, CONGRESS that makes laws. Not sure where you got your education but this is an embarrassment

Kushinator · Mar 14, 2019

Conservative said:
What about the 50% of income earners that pay ZERO in federal income taxes, what should they get back? Why aren't these people paying something vs. the radical left calling on corporations and rich people to pay more?

What the state gets back out of federal income taxes are things like NATIONAL DEFENSE, a LEGAL SYSTEM, NASA, CONGRESS that makes laws. Not sure where you got your education but this is an embarrassment

Poor Republican states clearly are not paying their fair share. If they were, they wouldn't be sending less to DC than they get back. It's not a coincidence that these states are also dead last in education, health care, and income.

Conservative · Mar 15, 2019

Kushinator said:
Poor Republican states clearly are not paying their fair share. If they were, they wouldn't be sending less to DC than they get back. It's not a coincidence that these states are also dead last in education, health care, and income.

It is absolutely stupid people then that keep moving to these states as population for example in TX continues to boom. People moving to the states that have term limits and yet continue to support programs you say aren't benefiting them. typical leftwing logic and no common sense. Keep spouting the lies about the red and blue state tax issue while totally ignoring how wrong a book smart street stupid liberal is.

There is absolutely no comparison between Federal Income Taxes and federal mandates, expenses, Medicare, SS yet the radical left keeps stating that red states get more back then they contribute as apparently there are no Democrats getting assistance in those red states from federal mandates, no employees working at military bases, no poor Democrats receiving federal assistance, no federal retirees in red states getting pensions and healthcare benefits or SS,

The radical left continues to ignore what money goes to the states and tie it all to federal income taxes but then again the radical left ties everything to federal income taxes and any reduction is demonized. Another clueless post and total lack of understanding explained in the following. You want your state, just replace TX with your state.

State Smart: Federal Funds in Texas

No radical leftist understands the role of the federal, state, and local governments and fails to realize how Congressional legislation for social programs is a federal overreach and the responsibility of the state and local governments

jonny5 · Mar 15, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
we all agree that we need to cut spending and lower the debt
have you got a better idea?
as I said a 1% sales tax would be just for lowering the debt and when it was paid off the sales tax would be discontinued
With a sales tax that everybody pays with no exceptions and not being able to deduct it from your taxes Everybody would be paying it and just about everybody got some type of benefit from us putting a lot of things on the debt
so everybody should pay it and as I said make it just to pay off the debt and when the debt is paid off it would be taken off.
Have a nice day

We dont need a 1% tax. We pay more than enough already. Cut every singles depts spending by 20%, take the surplus and pay off the debt. Simple.

jonny5 · Mar 15, 2019

MTAtech said:
I disagree about a sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive -- they hit the middle class and poor the most, because they spend most of their income in consumption. It is far better to increase the top marginal tax-rate, which is far below historical levels.

And yet here we are, so it isnt better. The rich pay more than ever, while most americans pay no income taxes. And we have more debt than ever. Everyone should have some skin in the game. That would be far better.

MTAtech · Mar 15, 2019

jonny5 said:
And yet here we are, so it isnt better. The rich pay more than ever, while most americans pay no income taxes. And we have more debt than ever. Everyone should have some skin in the game. That would be far better.

The rich pay more than ever? The top marginal tax-rate (income $500,001 or more) is 37%. That's lower than the 50% under Reagan and 70% or more (91% under Ike) that existed for most of the 20th Century. Moreover, capital gains rates are now 20%, which is lower than it was under Obama and far lower than the 40% (long term) and 60% (short term) that existed in the 1980s.

So, I don't know how you determined they were the highest now.

Moreover, most Americans with income pay income taxes. Those with little income are exempt from the income tax because Ronald Reagan created the earned-income tax credit (EITC), which has helped millions of families stave off poverty. Meanwhile, the 70 million tax filers in the bottom 50% earn 50% less total income than the top 1% of filers. (link). So, how much money do you think you can squeeze out of them?

Conservative · Mar 15, 2019

MTAtech said:
The rich pay more than ever? The top marginal tax-rate (income $500,001 or more) is 37%. That's lower than the 50% under Reagan and 70% or more (91% under Ike) that existed for most of the 20th Century. Moreover, capital gains rates are now 20%, which is lower than it was under Obama and far lower than the 40% (long term) and 60% (short term) that existed in the 1980s.

So, I don't know how you determined they were the highest now.

Moreover, most Americans with income pay income taxes. Those with little income are exempt from the income tax because Ronald Reagan created the earned-income tax credit (EITC), which has helped millions of families stave off poverty. Meanwhile, the 70 million tax filers in the bottom 50% earn 50% less total income than the top 1% of filers. (link). So, how much money do you think you can squeeze out of them?

Most Americans with income pay income taxes?? What is your definition of MOST and why isn't those with income aren't paying something before going after the rich and corporations to pay more?

More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch

Are you telling us that these people who are earning income shouldn't be paying something for the national defense of this country and other line items in the Federal budget funded by FIT?

MTAtech · Mar 15, 2019

Conservative said:
Most Americans with income pay income taxes?? What is your definition of MOST and why isn't those with income aren't paying something before going after the rich and corporations to pay more?

More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch

Are you telling us that these people who are earning income shouldn't be paying something for the national defense of this country and other line items in the Federal budget funded by FIT?

I said "most." You said 44% don't. 100% - 44% = 56%. That's most.

jonny5 · Mar 15, 2019

MTAtech said:
The rich pay more than ever? The top marginal tax-rate (income $500,001 or more) is 37%. That's lower than the 50% under Reagan and 70% or more (91% under Ike) that existed for most of the 20th Century. Moreover, capital gains rates are now 20%, which is lower than it was under Obama and far lower than the 40% (long term) and 60% (short term) that existed in the 1980s.

So, I don't know how you determined they were the highest now.

Moreover, most Americans with income pay income taxes. Those with little income are exempt from the income tax because Ronald Reagan created the earned-income tax credit (EITC), which has helped millions of families stave off poverty. Meanwhile, the 70 million tax filers in the bottom 50% earn 50% less total income than the top 1% of filers. (link). So, how much money do you think you can squeeze out of them?

Yes, the rich are paying more than ever taxes, and a greater share of taxes. They may pay a lower RATE on a dollar of income, but everyone else if paying even less, which means they are paying MORE. And we can squeeze at least a little out of the bottom 50% since they nearly no income tax. They account for 800 billion in AGI. But only 46bn in income tax. Thats means 50% of workers are paying less than 1% of the tax burden which pays for Defense, Justice, NASA, Roads, a big chunk of medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare, veterans affairs, obamacare, foreign affairs, food safety, regulation of banks, and on and on.

Deficit-swelling Trump White House plans to use deficit against Democrats

I'm not-low all the time