Time to bust the big Washington myth.

[Vetplus40]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

 

[ocean515]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

The ONLY party, let me repeat; The ONLY party, with ideas that have any hope of dealing with the deficit, is the party that seeks to unburden business and expand the tax base by providing the opportunity to increase the number of citizens who actually pay federal income taxes.

As a hint to which party that would be, it would not be any party that would be defined as belonging on the "left side of the aisle".

 

[DA60]

The ONLY party, let me repeat; The ONLY party, with ideas that have any hope of dealing with the deficit, is the party that seeks to unburden business and expand the tax base by providing the opportunity to increase the number of citizens who actually pay federal income taxes.

As a hint to which party that would be, it would not be any party that would be defined as belonging on the "left side of the aisle".

That is your solution to high deficits...more taxation?

That is one of the worst possible answers.

The proper answer is obvious...STOP SPENDING SO MUCH.


And which party has done that?

Answer...neither.

 

[ocean515]

That is your solution to high deficits...more taxation?

That is one of the worst possible answers.

The proper answer is obvious...STOP SPENDING SO MUCH.


And which party has done that?

Answer...neither.

You don't want to see the expansion of the tax base? Do you understand what that even means?

The only way to address the deficit is to have more people paying taxes to the federal government.

That doesn't mean higher tax rates, that means more people earning taxable incomes.

Is that a concept that escapes you?

There is only one party attempting to create an atmosphere where this can happen. It sure isn't the freebie/handout/everything is free party of Bernie and Hillary

 

[Exquisitor]

That is your solution to high deficits...more taxation?

That is one of the worst possible answers.

The proper answer is obvious...STOP SPENDING SO MUCH.


And which party has done that?

Answer...neither.

If you stop spending then this is money that is no longer going into the economy in the form of wages.

Balance is the only option.

Look how there was recovery with so much opposition, all that the economy needs to succeed is for Government to do nothing, all Trump has to do to succeed is fail at most of his initiatives (especially tax reform.)

Bill Clinton cared about the deficit, he had his down to zero by the end of his Administration.

If Trump gets his tax proposals he's just letting Government implode like Obamacare.

Bankruptcy may not be a bad option, he could declare bankruptcy at the end of four years and have a clean slate for the start of his next Administration.

This might be nice except that the super rich get away with all the loot and millions are out of jobs.

 

[countryboy]

You don't want to see the expansion of the tax base? Do you understand what that even means?

The only way to address the deficit is to have more people paying taxes to the federal government.

That doesn't mean higher tax rates, that means more people earning taxable incomes.

Is that a concept that escapes you?

There is only one party attempting to create an atmosphere where this can happen. It sure isn't the freebie/handout/everything is free party of Bernie and Hillary

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head.

 

[countryboy]

If you stop spending then this is money that is no longer going into the economy in the form of wages.

Balance is the only option.

Look how there was recovery with so much opposition, all that the economy needs to succeed is for Government to do nothing, all Trump has to do to succeed is fail at most of his initiatives (especially tax reform.)

Bill Clinton cared about the deficit, he had his down to zero by the end of his Administration.

If Trump gets his tax proposals he's just letting Government implode like Obamacare.

Bankruptcy may not be a bad option, he could declare bankruptcy at the end of four years and have a clean slate for the start of his next Administration.

This might be nice except that the super rich get away with all the loot and millions are out of jobs.

Lol, the mythical Clinton "surplus". :lamo

 

[Ikari]

The ONLY party, let me repeat; The ONLY party, with ideas that have any hope of dealing with the deficit, is the party that seeks to unburden business and expand the tax base by providing the opportunity to increase the number of citizens who actually pay federal income taxes.

As a hint to which party that would be, it would not be any party that would be defined as belonging on the "left side of the aisle".

lol, which side has "grown" the deficit more? In fact, when was the last time any party DECREASED the deficit?

You're not going to wage Infinity War without deficit, and the Republocrats love Infinity War.

 

[faithful_servant]

That is your solution to high deficits...more taxation?

That is one of the worst possible answers.

The proper answer is obvious...STOP SPENDING SO MUCH.


And which party has done that?

Answer...neither.

Why not do both?? Why not make the tax base as "wide and shallow" as possible, while also cutting spending??

 

[faithful_servant]

If you stop spending then this is money that is no longer going into the economy in the form of wages.

Balance is the only option.

Look how there was recovery with so much opposition, all that the economy needs to succeed is for Government to do nothing, all Trump has to do to succeed is fail at most of his initiatives (especially tax reform.)

Bill Clinton cared about the deficit, he had his down to zero by the end of his Administration.

If Trump gets his tax proposals he's just letting Government implode like Obamacare.

Bankruptcy may not be a bad option, he could declare bankruptcy at the end of four years and have a clean slate for the start of his next Administration.

This might be nice except that the super rich get away with all the loot and millions are out of jobs.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the minor surplus at the then end if his term. The FACT i s that it happened IN SPITE OF Clinton, not because of him. If you want to give any one person credit for it, that one person would be Gingrich.

 

[tres borrachos]

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the minor surplus at the then end if his term. The FACT i s that it happened IN SPITE OF Clinton, not because of him. If you want to give any one person credit for it, that one person would be Gingrich.

You're correct about the surplus being more to Gingrich's credit than Clinton's, but because he was President, he still gets the credit. If there ends up being a budge surplus in 2019, do you want everyone to say it's Ryan's and not Trump's?

 

[Mach]

That's probably true, but maybe the only thing wrong with it is that they should never use it politically in the first place.
What do most credible economists say should be done with the debt? I suspect they say that the only real issue is that they make debt political as described in the OP, and that can shake our financial rating. Other than that, debt in some reasonable proportion to GDP doesn't seem like some crisis.

 

[faithful_servant]

You're correct about the surplus being more to Gingrich's credit than Clinton's, but because he was President, he still gets the credit. If there ends up being a budge surplus in 2019, do you want everyone to say it's Ryan's and not Trump's?

Absolutely!! The credit should go who actually did the work. The President has little influence over the budget beyond a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on it. He can make suggestions, but at the end of the day it's Congress who sets the budget.

 

[Exquisitor]

You're correct about the surplus being more to Gingrich's credit than Clinton's, but because he was President, he still gets the credit. If there ends up being a budge surplus in 2019, do you want everyone to say it's Ryan's and not Trump's?

Bill Clinton vetoed the Republican plan shutting down Government.

Now Republicans think they must shut down government too, not just once either.

Then Reprobates got it together and balanced budget.

The President has nothing to do with the surplus at the end of his term!

 

[DA60]

You don't want to see the expansion of the tax base? Do you understand what that even means?

The only way to address the deficit is to have more people paying taxes to the federal government.

That is DEAD WRONG - 100%. Another way to address the deficit is to LOWER SPENDING.

Or do you not even understand what that means?

That doesn't mean higher tax rates, that means more people earning taxable incomes.

Is that a concept that escapes you?

There is only one party attempting to create an atmosphere where this can happen. It sure isn't the freebie/handout/everything is free party of Bernie and Hillary

I did not say higher taxes...I said NOTHING about 'higher taxes'.

I said 'more taxation'. They are two different things.

You want more people to pay taxes. I don't give a crap about that.

I want to end corporate tax, make capital gains taxes on par with income taxes, I want to lower taxes to three tax rates 1) under the poverty line - 0% 2) poverty line - $50,000 - 15% and C) over $50,000 - 25%
PLUS end all deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.

And if that means a lot less government income? GOOD.

That will force government to spend a LOT less.


The government already takes in FAR too much money. They need to rein in spending, not raise taxation. The government does not need more of Americans money to waste...they need less. FAR, FAR less.

But not to you. To you - apparently - spending less is not a concept you even understand.

 

[poweRob]

That's probably true, but maybe the only thing wrong with it is that they should never use it politically in the first place.
What do most credible economists say should be done with the debt? I suspect they say that the only real issue is that they make debt political as described in the OP, and that can shake our financial rating. Other than that, debt in some reasonable proportion to GDP doesn't seem like some crisis.

Not all debt is bad debt. US treasury bonds are a very secure place to park your money if you are a retiree and you don't trust wall street gamblers with your retirement money. But going into debt to foreign entitees... that's a bigger risk for the country.

As far as curing deficits... The right-wing thinks you cut to the bone which they try all the time and fail us. You economically grow your way out of it. Repubs love to say cutting is "pro-growth". It is not. I don't know how many times they can tank our economy and still have their base believe them.

 

[ocean515]

lol, which side has "grown" the deficit more? In fact, when was the last time any party DECREASED the deficit?

You're not going to wage Infinity War without deficit, and the Republocrats love Infinity War.

If the tax base is not increased, the deficit will never be addressed due to base line budgeting. And for those who don't grasp what "tax base increased" means, that means more people earning taxable incomes, not select people paying more taxes.

If you know another way, post it.

 

[ocean515]

That is DEAD WRONG - 100%. Another way to address the deficit is to LOWER SPENDING.

Or do you not even understand what that means?



I did not say higher taxes...I said NOTHING about 'higher taxes'.

I said 'more taxation'. They are two different things.

You want more people to pay taxes. I don't give a crap about that.

I want to end corporate tax, make capital gains taxes on par with income taxes, I want to lower taxes to three tax rates 1) under the poverty line - 0% 2) poverty line - $50,000 - 15% and C) over $50,000 - 25%
PLUS end all deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.

And if that means a lot less government income? GOOD.

That will force government to spend a LOT less.


The government already takes in FAR too much money. They need to rein in spending, not raise taxation. The government does not need more of Americans money to waste...they need less. FAR, FAR less.

But not to you. To you - apparently - spending less is not a concept you even understand.

I agree with you. I see the effort as taking on two fronts.

One, massive cuts to spending. This means the elimination of many government agencies and departments.

Two, which would be partially addressed by step one, enacting policies that improve the business environment in order to have more workers contributing to tax revenue, not avoiding any federal income tax liability.

 

[Vetplus40]

lol, which side has "grown" the deficit more? In fact, when was the last time any party DECREASED the deficit?

You're not going to wage Infinity War without deficit, and the Republocrats love Infinity War.

The Republicans hate increasing the deficit unless it is for things that they support. Tax breaks for the wealthy and supporting a fake war in Iraq come to mind.

 

[jonny5]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

Whats the myth? I thought everyone new that Washington cared more about power than securing rights for the citizens. Well, at least when conservatives are using it as political ammo they sometimes accomplish things. Look at the 90s, 2007, and now.

 

[jonny5]

lol, which side has "grown" the deficit more? In fact, when was the last time any party DECREASED the deficit?

r.

2015. The deficit had been decreasing since Republicans took over the House in 2011, forced a shutdown and then a budget with spending controls. Before that, from 2004-2007.

 

[Ikari]

If the tax base is not increased, the deficit will never be addressed due to base line budgeting. And for those who don't grasp what "tax base increased" means, that means more people earning taxable incomes, not select people paying more taxes.

If you know another way, post it.

That didn't answer the question. The GOP has been in power before, as has the DNC. Either side could have "grown the tax base". When was the last time any party decreased the deficit? You'll notice the trends, yes, that the GOP has been amongst some of the biggest contributors to deficit growth. Hell, the last time that the deficit shrank fractionally compared to GDP was under Clinton.

So which party is it again that is oh so going to reduce our deficit and get our spending under control? Neither? Yes...neither.

 

[Ikari]

2015. The deficit had been decreasing since Republicans took over the House in 2011, forced a shutdown and then a budget with spending controls. Before that, from 2004-2007.

Although during Clinton it the amount of debt as a % GDP fell, it should be noted at no time did the deficit actually go down. The rate at which is has grown has fluctuated, but we've never ended a year with less total debt than we started.

 

[fmw]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

And that is why we need a single term limit for lawmakers.

 

[Perotista]

The ONLY time, let me repeat: The ONLY time that any party in Washington ACTUALLY cares about the deficit is when one party wants to use it as political ammo against the other. "Deficit reduction" in DC is simply an oxymoron. Consider it the legislative equivalent of the literary term: "Sanitary landfill".

I agree. Look at the senate votes via party on the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has always been a political football, at least since Reagan and actually before him. Eisenhower tried like all get out to balance the budget and succeeded twice in bringing down the national debt with a surplus. But who votes for raising the debt ceiling and who votes against, recently has been decided by who holds the presidency. Which party the president belongs to, if the president is of your party, you are all for raising it, if the president is of the opposite party, you are against it. Below shows you how the senate voted on the debt ceiling, during Bush the 2nd tenure, Democrats on the whole were adamantly against raising it, Republicans for raising the debt ceiling. Now exit Bush the 2nd and enter Obama, each party has done a 180, all of a sudden the Democrats are all for it, the Republicans against it. See below
BUSH THE 2ND TENURE
Year..Democrats for..Democrats against..Republicans for..Republicans against
2002…….37………………….14………………31………………18
2003……..3…………………...45………………50………………..1
2004……..2……………………46……………....50………………..1
2006……..0……………………44………………52………………...3 *

*It is interest to note in 2006 President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and made a speech stating it was unpatriotic to do so.
OBAMA PRESIDENCY
2009 ………59…………………0………………..1……………….40
2010…….....60…………………0………………..0……………….40
2012……….52…………………3………………..1………………..45
2013……….55………………….0……………….26……………….18

So one can see that neither party has any core beliefs when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. It all depends on whom or from which party the president is from.