The GOP controlled house is a disgrace. They deserve to loose their majority. After a great booming economy...and record revenue coming into the treasury...you would think we could finally reduce our debt.
Instead, they kept spending and increased our deficit for years to come.
Why did they think we wound send them back? They are no different than the previous Democrats that only knows how to spend. In fact they are worse. At least the democrats are honest about it. They are the tax and spend party and they admit it. Whereas the GOP run on balanced budget and limited government and tax reduction but they kept spending even during booming times.
If now is not the time to cut spending, I don’t know when.
Paul Ryan, you are a huge disappointment. You should know better and you lie just like all the rest. You say one thing and go ahead and legislate another. Who is paying your salary? I am beginning to wonder.
Here is the supporting story...
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te … 0b-deficit
You also can thank the massive tax cut for the skyrocketing deficit.
Republicans aren't very conservative if they increase spending, cut taxes and claim they want a balanced budget all at the same time.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4008 … nding-bill
No that is the wrong conclusion. The tax cut was necessary. The problem was spending. If we as a country, despite the tax reform, was able to raise record revenue, that is wonderful. It proofs that tax cut works in stimulating the economy... what was wrong is for Congress to continue and spend like a drunken sailor...even when we are in an economic boom. The excuses given during the Obama years was his spending was necessary to get us out of a recession. However, the recession ended in 2010. Yet, spending continued unabated for another 8 years... that is the real problem and both party is at fault.
Tax cuts don't reduce revenue? They don't increase deficits?
Some of us have a life and do not sit at a computer and respond to every posting...
Or respond when they are faced with fact and logic.
But they will respond in the meantime to other posts.
You also didn't answer my questions.
Anyone who repeats propaganda from Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh runs face first into fact, logic and reality every time.
The answer is a balanced budget ammendment. Force congress to cut their spending. They must live within their means like all American families. We can cut spending and focus on the necessity. There is always going to be a nice project to invest in... but we just don’t have unlimited funds. They must make tough decisions on spending...where to put the money for the most good. Cut the waste and abuse and fraud in medicare and medicaid...
Limit the welfare system so that only the people in need gets the help and only temporary to get them back on their feet, not the generation of welfare families that devestate human dignity...shall I go on...
Promise, when you are not part of the solution...you are part of the problem. You and your democratic enablers are destroying our country from within. Our nation will never be defeated by foreign invaders. It will fall from within with people like the globalist from both side of the aisle and international corporations and big progressive donors like Soros. They love to have the people divided and fighting among ourselves.
It is said nothing in politics are accidents. Everything you see and read and experience are orchestrated to deceive you. Unfortunately, American voters are falling for it every two years.
Yes, that is my sole purpose in life -- to "destroy our country" and give it to "foreign invaders".
Really, everyone who doesn't love Trump or agree with you should be kicked out of the country or placed in concentration camps for being traitors.
I knew it.
You finally broke down and admitted it. Good for you.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Did you even read what I said. You are not my enemy. You are being lied to...
Your words seemed to give that impression, Jack.
There is a difference between calling someone a traitor and someone being fooled to commit treasonable acts. What I am saying and hear me carefully so you won’t mis interpret what I am saying, is that ther are elements in our society who are the rich and powerful who donate to both parties candidates and have control over them. They in turn do their bidding and screw the American people. Most people don’t realize what is happening and assume the other party is at fault when in fact they are both sides of the same coin. People like Promise falls into that category. Instead of holding elected officials responsible for the bad policies they implement, they choose sides and unfortunately, we became a divided nation to the delight of the rich and powerful.
Can I make it clearer that that?
From our viewpoint Jack, you are the one being fooled into your political beliefs. Works both ways..
You can believe that all you want. My views are clear and my conscience are clear and I am a patriot and I support our Constitution. What is going on in Washington DC will make our founding fathers turn over in their graves. Who do you think I stand for?
You used the word "you" in your comment 4 times. Among other sentences, you said:
"You and your democratic enablers are destroying our country from within."
So yes, you accused me of destroying our country.
Only because you fail to see what they are doing...and you defend them at all cost, including hurting the rest of us. On the other hand, the difference between you and me is, I called out both sides when they do wrong. That is called being consistent. If you want to join me in my crusade to get rid of this corruption, I am all in.
Read my original post. Instead of agreeing with me, you choose to attack me the messenger. That is why you are hopelessly lost...
So you admit you did accuse me of trying to destroy the country.
If you really called out both sides, which you don't, you would agree with my original post that a massive tax cut leads to higher budget deficits.
Nothing could be more obvious, logical and provable.
If a tax cut leads to additional revenues, how is it obvious that higher deficits result?
I believe you misunderstand. Tax cuts don't lead to higher revenues. They lead to lower revenues, which in turn cause higher deficits, especially when spending is going up.
And yet it seems to have done exactly that. Increasing the load on business, discouraging expansion, does not always produce higher tax receipts from either businesses that didn't expand or from employees it didn't hire.
Yes, it has done exactly that. Led to lower revenues and a higher deficit.
Did I just see that tax revenues are up? Did someone tell a fib?
You saw where on here that tax cuts increase revenue?
"Did I just see that tax revenues are up? "
Tell me, promisem, just where in that simple statement you see that I said tax cuts increase revenue. If all you're going to do is continue to put words in my mouth that were never there, there is nothing more needs said.
Tell me, Wilderness, did you say "If a tax cut leads to additional revenues..."?
You put your own words in your mouth and then forget you said them. Nor did you answer my question about where you saw that tax revenues are going up.
That is false and I can proof it.
The revenue went up after Reagan’s tax cut was implemented.
It was the spending that went up even more that created the “Reagan deficit”.Congress under rhe control of the Democrats hold the purse string as you well know...
That has nothing to do with debt and deficits.
Or with the growth rate of the economy at that time.
We were talking about revenue. This graph shows revenue went skyrocket after the Reagan tax cut...
The other fact you refuse to acknowledge is that the rich pay most of the taxes in this country. Half of the population do not pay any federal income tax.
So this whole argument about how the rich is not paying their fair share is bogus.
What is fair? Not paying income tax is not fair.
We has a progressive tax system in this country today.
The rich pay more as they should. However, we don’t want to become like France or sweden when the average middle class pays 60% or higher income tax. That is how they can afford free healthcare and free higher education...
That is not true and history have shown this. In the 1980s, the Reagan tax cuts lead to a huge growth in revenue. However, the Congress spent even more and failed to make the cuts they promised and as a result, the deficits ballooned...that is a statement of fact. You can go and do the research and find the numbers to verify.
I read plenty of history, thank you. I suggest you read more yourself. The cuts lead to a massive increase in deficits and debt.
This is why you had 44 Republicans resign from the House, these 'establishment' types like Ryan that stood in the way of making any real progress/change. They chose to spend two years stalling to get anything done, rather than make things happen.
Same for the likes of McCain and Flake, Senators that were 'Republicans' in name only... they served their own greed, and the interests of the corporations and billionaires over the people... sell-outs.
This is why ultimately nothing positive ever gets done for the people... this BS of blaming Dems or Reps is a waste of time... corporations and billionaires buy politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The most positive thing about Trump is we know he isn't owned by the corporations or a billionaire like Soros, Trump is a billionaire and is so egotistical and full of himself he would never be a puppet to some schmuck like Soros. Unlike say, Obama, who could be had for a couple hundred million or less.
This buying of politicians goes on everywhere in this country, Gillum was given millions by Soros, the guy wouldn't have been able to get two nickels to rub together if not for Soros and his friends buying him an entire campaign in his efforts to become Governor of Florida, and now they are fixing the election in Florida to make sure they get their money's worth, more than a week after the election is over and they are still counting ballots in Broward County.
Just how do you know Trump isn't owned by anyone, Ken? Inside info?
Nobody adhered to Keynesian economics more than Ronald Reagan.
While the tax cuts are projected to increase revenue by increasing taxable income, the overall impact increases the deficit:
"The [2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] . . . increases the total projected deficit over the 2018–2028 period by about $1.9 trillion"(1).
In terms of spending, defense received the biggest boost.
"Compared to current law spending caps, the agreement increases defense discretionary funding by $80 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and $85 billion in FY 2019 vs. an increase in non-defense domestic discretionary of $63 billion in FY 2018 and $68 billion in FY 2019"(2).
But in general, finding common sense spending cuts wouldn't be a bad idea.
Likewise, scaling back some of the tax cuts would also help.
(Never thought I'd sound more like a fiscal conservative than Republicans in office but that's where we are I guess).
Well, partly anyway. No self respecting conservative would ever suggest a tax hike without a darn good reason. Like WWII, maybe.
Maybe it's because you actually think about it rather than just a gut reaction to that is unlimited funding available for anything we want to do. There is that bit about common sense spending cuts, though...
And yet so-called self-respecting conservatives on HP -- actually fake conservatives -- seem fine with the current government cutting taxes, increasing spending and driving up a massive amount of national debt.
I'm starting to wonder who is really a self-respecting conservative. More likely, they just don't think very clearly.
Conservatives believe in a limited government. This along with a tax cut will stimulate the private sector and bring in more tax revenue. How does that work? More people working will lead to more people paying taxes and then add to the treasury... This was the laffer curve. It worked in the 1980s and it can still work today. We just need a Congress that can live within its means. They can only spend what they take in. Isn’t that what you and I do at our own households? There is always more projects that deserve funding. However, our resources are limited. The government can only do so much. It is so easy to spend other people’s money...If Congress has to pay out of their own pockets for these programs, they will sing a different tune.
The CBO points to some benefits of the 2017 tax act, such as increasing investment.
But in relation to the deficit, the CBO cleary says the tax act " . . . increases the total projected deficit over the 2018–2028 period by about $1.9 trillion"(1).
Last sentence of the link: "That uncertainty implies that the actual outcomes may differ substantially from the projected ones."
I would suggest that the outcomes are already substantially different unless the CBO projected, whenever the actual work was done (published April this year), in unemployment rates at record lows. I highly doubt that was the case.
Wilderness, just a warning about Jake. He will lead you down a rabbit hole. I stopped engaging him and respond to his posts long ago...
I think you stopped engaging me because I post facts:
LOL No, our Jake will not lead me anywhere, for I fully recognize he is far gone down that rabbit hole. But he DOES make a fair comedic foil.
Phew, thought I was in danger of losing my lefty-liberal-snowflake card for a moment there. Seems I get to keep it a while longer.
The same thing happened with Reagan. He cut taxes while increasing spending to stimulate the economy.
It did increase revenue, but not as much as the increase in spending. The result was a massive increase in debt and deficits.
They never learn.
It was not Reagan that increased spending..lt was the Democrat controlled Congress.
He also passed an amnesty bill but wanted to secure our borders. The same Congress agreed and pass the bill and reneg later. That is why, 30 years later, we have the same problem with illegal crossing our borders.
And according to the CBO, the cuts will also result in an increase in the cost of servicing the debt because . . .
" . . . even though the reduction in primary deficits means that less borrowing is necessary, the act is expected to result in higher interest rates on debt, which are projected to more than offset the effects on debt-service costs of the smaller debt. On net, economic feedback from the act raises debt-service costs in CBO’s projections by about $100 billion".
The CBO has been wrong on almost all projections...why would anyone listen to them.
The truth is, interest rate was kept too low near 0% for too long...all through the Obama Administration. That created an anomoly of “free money” and now, we are getting back to normal by raising interest rate slowly. Yes, that will cause the federal treasury a lot of money to service these debt. It is now over $22 trillion. At 3% rate, that is 660 billion in interest alone.
Don, it is best to put these numbers in personal perspective.
With the current national debt, that translate into $68,000 owed per person of every man, women and child of our country.
During the Obama 8 years, our bebt doubled.
That is to say, he spent so much money, we now owe twice as much as we owed in 2008. Trump in his two years, added to that debt by two trillion which is controlled by the GOP congress. They pass the spending bill which Trump said he would not sign another one if cuts are not in place. We will see...now that the House is divided again.
Yep. If Congress and Trump won't cut spending, the deficit will explode. Going down the primrose path.
Time to CUT spending by CANCELLING that 2 trillion dollar corporate welfare tax cut scam that Bozo Trump, Mutt McConnell, con man republican Paul Ryan and the rest of the corrupt republican congress just gave to the filthy rich just months ago:
Cancelling this massive wealth transfer scam to the wealthiest will go a long way toward fixing Trump's growing deficit:
Uhh...you do know that a tax cut is not "spending"?
If Bozo Trump's corporate welfare tax cut scam isn't 'spending' WHY did it explode our national debt?
Go back to school, Jake. Perhaps 2nd grade arithmetic would be most appropriate.
I've already been to school wilderness, maybe it's your turn:
"Tax cuts, spending to raise U.S. deficit to $1 trillion by 2020, CBO analysis shows"
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nat … story.html
"Tax cuts, spending to raise U.S. deficit to $1 trillion by 2020, CBO analysis shows"
That little bolded word makes a difference doesn't it? As does any assumption a tax cut will always result in reduced tax receipts.
Back to school, then, if for reading classes if nothing else. We've been over this one before, where you can't seem to read even your own posts.
If you cut taxes, just like Bozo Trump and his republicans did through their corporate welfare tax cut scam giving trillions to the filthy rich, you loose revenue period which explodes the deficit :
It's a pretty simple concept:
Simple, yes. Correct, no. Go back and study your arithmetic some more. 1+1 equals 2, but 1+3 does not.
And for the umpteenth time, allowing people to keep what they earned is not "giving trillions" to anyone. You don't own their wealth, no matter how much you wish you did, and so cannot give it to them.
When a government has the right to "Collect TAXES" to pay for the maintenance of a vast continent spanning approximately 3,000 miles in length, then yes, the money is the communities to be used for the common good: The only question is how much of the financial burden for said maintenance is placed on the filthy rich versus all others:
Do we give trillions our wealth to the filthy rich and squeeze our working class and senior citizens by slashing their social security benefits to pay for Steve Mnuchin's corporate welfare tax cut scam as Bozo Trump and the Russian republicans in congress have already done, or do we ease the burden on Americans while shifting a little more of our wealth away from the billionaires?
The Democratic BLUE Wave has spoken in the midterms and the vast majority want to cancel Mr. trump's corporate welfare tax cut scam, healthcare for all, protected social security and medicare and of course a check on this insanely dangerous and neurotic white house until he's removed according to our laws:
Oh good! You realize taxes are for the maintenance of a country 3,000 miles across; to be used for the common good of the nation!
Not to improve the lives of specific individuals. That means we can cut off about a third (or more) of the nations budget and let people keep more of the money they have earned and own. You are always welcome, of course, to contribute more than your share, just as you would force others to do.
It doesn't help that there is no Federal budget for disaster relief. It comes directly from deficit.
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time when economic theory said we needed more, not less, deficit spending, the scolds...
by Quilligrapher 6 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax...
by IslandBites 4 weeks ago
This year, the deficit is projected by the Treasury Department to exceed $1 trillion, an increase from $779 billion last year. That comes as the United States’ national debt exceeds $22 trillion.Four years ago, when a slew of Republicans were running for president, then-candidate Donald Trump was...
by ahorseback 19 months ago
Whatever you do follow those party lines or pay for it dearly , you WILL be shamed ?
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...
by Texasbeta 8 years ago
Republicans like Boehner will shed a tear when asked about THEIR federal job, but when the topic of you losing YOUR federal job, they respond: "So be it."http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ … XO20110215BTW- He also lied about how many jobs were in question as well...just to...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|