After dealing with the wall and immigration, what is next?

1. 77

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   Trump must deal with the looming debt.
   This is a solvable problem. It is a spending problem, not taxation.
   We are raising record revenue at the IRS.
   Yet, we are still spending more than we take in.
   That needs to stop.
   Trump must tackle this because Democrats wont and Repulbicans wont either.
   Only an outsider and a real businessman can comprehend the debt crisis...

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I spent the money
      I gave the money away
      
      These are not identical; "spent" implies something of value was purchased, while "gave" does not.  Yes, we have fraud in what govt. spends and yes, govt. is the most inefficient of buyers, but spending is not the root of the problem.  Giving it away for nothing in return, coupled with a populace wherein only half contribute a net of even $1 to the tax base is.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         +100000000000000000. Wilderness, our government spend millions on useless & stupid social & welfare programs.  Cut the useless social & welfare programs & there would be less deficits.  Another solution is to dismantle nonessential civil service jobs.  Government jobs are oftentimes repetitive & serve no productive purpose.   Government is the problem regarding the deficit & government should be the solution- LESS government. Privatizing jobs would increase revenue.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, although some of our welfare programs are of enormous value, there are far too many that are not only "useless" but downright detrimental to both the recipient AND the country as a whole.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Wow, that was a QUICK but EXCELLENT response.  Of course, these "programs" besides being totally useless are indeed DETRIMENTAL   Such "programs" are taxing us middle class to DEATH & are creating lazy, entitled people who can work but WON'T.   Let's us go Old Testament here, work or STARVE, work or DO WITHOUT.   When poverty was tough in America, people did without & looked for ways to get out of poverty-ON THEIR OWN...…….Let's return to those days!

               replyreport
      2. 77

         jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Agree, but the term government use is spending. They spend and the problem is the balance sheet. We always spend more than we take in...
         How clong can this go on?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know, but I suspect we are nearing the end of the spree.  There are consequences to such poor behavior, even if we pretend there aren't; judgement day WILL come.  And it's going to be painful beyond anything we've seen in the past 100 years - the great depression will seem like a walk in the park.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               +10000000000000000000000000000000000000. It all started with the so-called Great Society of the 1960s & it went downhill from there.

               replyreport
         2. 84

            Readmikenowposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Are not the purse strings of the United States held by the Democrat controlled US Congress at the moment?  Would you say there is limited action President Donald Trump can do to change things?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               He can cut down on some of the spending...regardless of Congress.
               There are a million ways government can cut back. He just can’t request more money for the wall...

               replyreport
            2. 81

               Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

               That is why I and the people voted in a Democratic majority in Congress.
               
               If the country was so enamored with Trump, how did this happen? Trump is limited, yes.
               
               I am never going to agree with any rightwinger as to where we are going to make cuts to the budget.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     There is such a thing as "wisdom from the mouth of babes".

                     replyreport
               2. 79

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sure you won't (agree where to cut the budget).  JFK's words "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” is as dead as a door nail to the progressives of the country - the question is always "What do I get from it".
                  
                  Rightwingers don't think that way, so agreement will be difficult to accomplish.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Right wingers are worse, so, of course THEY, don't think that way.
                     
                     It's only in YOUR mind that YOUR way is better, ask the rest of the electorate if they see your erudite reasoning in the same way, Wilderness?
                     
                     A Rightwinger has no business sullying the JFK name by mentioning it.
                     
                     Since JFK, there has been Vietnam, Watergate, greedy corporate and affluent pigs, The Great Society and 9-11 to mention a few. The point is is that it is not 1961 anymore.
                     
                     But I wonder, while Mr. Kennedy was delivering that famous inauguration address, if there were anyone in the audience that reminisced fondly about the "good old days", say 1904-05?

                     replyreport
                  2. 86

                     gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000, America went from ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country to my country OWES me, I am entitled, dammit!  Told you Wilderness, the concept of accountability & responsibility is disappearing from America.   It is you owe me, rescue me, HELP ME live a comfortable lifestyle w/o no strings(working for it).

                     replyreport
   2. 61

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You must be a Schultz guy, Jack!   I know you don't mean the guy with 5 bankruptcies...….. 

      replyreport
      1. 77

         jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I do like Schultz and I would vote for him over any orher Democrats at this moment and over Trump.

         replyreport
   3. 82

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The amount of waste in government is catastrophic, but blaming Democrats over Republicans is wrong-headed. When you look at the current federal budget and what red states are taking from it versus what blue states are taking from it, you don't really find much of a difference.
      
      My other question: why, when discussing the federal budget, do some people always want to cut programs that help people in need? Some people always go straight to welfare. Let's cut welfare. I'm not disagreeing that most federal programs need an overhaul, but there are a lot of ways to cut the federal budgets and going directly to "lets' cut welfare" is a Republican mantra that doesn't solve the problem and targets the poor as the source of the problem.
      
      I think if you look at the federal budget, the problem lies in how each district takes its money. This is a red and a blue issue. It's the assumption of our Congresspeople that the money is there to be spent and it is allocated toward all sorts of silliness. However, one district's ridiculous expenditure is another's necessity.
      
      Some spending is useful because it creates jobs and creates more spending and more revenue.
      
      This problem is much bigger than targeting one particular group of people ("the poor"). It's the very way our government works and how the government spends. Most likely, the only way to reduce spending is to cut across-the-board by some percentage. It will also take somebody with a lot of courage to start digging through the federal budget and making some hard decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't.
      
      Almost every time something like that is done, it is done in an entirely political way. In almost EVERY CASE, re-election or election is based on our elected official's ability to bring federal money into his/her district.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "Almost every time something like that is done, it is done in an entirely political way. In almost EVERY CASE, re-election or election is based on our elected official's ability to bring federal money into his/her district."
         
         And therein lies the biggest single problem.  The federal government has become an endless pocketbook for states to dig into, rather than solve their own problems.  Need a new water treatment plant but don't want to pay for it?  Get the feds to do it.  Need a new transit system but don't want to pay the cost?  The feds will do it. 
         
         When we want something we always seem to want someone across the country, in another state that will never see any benefit from the expenditure, to buy it for us.  And that's a major problem for there is no reason NOT to spend the money, not when it comes from someone else.
         
         The poor - we have designed a system that traps the poor into their poverty, where there is no reason NOT to expect others to pick up the tab.  Same thing, then - there is no reason to put out the effort and work to get out, so they stay in.  I simply refuse to believe that half the people in this country - 160,000,000 of my neighbors, friends, and citizenry - cannot produce enough to not support themselves but have some left over to help defray the costs the nation needs to operate.  Yet that's what we've built with a welfare system that actively looks to give other people's money away while buying votes and patting ourselves on the back about how we've "helped" the poor...to remain poor.
         
         When my state voted to expand medicaid, one of the big selling points was that we will not only get back what we pay in taxes (we are already a "take" state, not a "give" one) but, with the influx of millions in federal money, the state will actually net more in taxes that it spends.  Taken from people living in other states.  Play the game, and take money from someone else to buy what we want.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You and I basically agree on these points. I agree with what you're saying. If we redesigned our welfare system to move people out of the system, it would be much more productive, but we'd still be giving something away. Still, much better to train people how to be self-sufficient than to simply give them something for nothing.
            
            Ultimately, this is a very complex problem and the people who are going to solve it are unlikely to be politicians because you don't succeed in our government trying to solve this problem unless the voters become more willing to sacrifice what they are getting from the federal government.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               We train people to produce something of value and the entire nation benefits.  We simply feed, house and clothe them and only they benefit...at the expense of others.  Of course, without an incentive to do so, most people aren't going to produce.
               
               Unfortunately, people won't sacrifice - than have been trained that they don't need to sacrifice to get what they want.  As they are the ones voting in the politicians, it will only get worse as a result.  I've posted it several times, so won't do it again, but the quote from Heinlein about "bread and circuses" is all too true.  A society that allows the citizenry to vote themselves "bread and circuses" at the expense of others cannot and will not endure.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, agreed. This is hardly the fault of the poor though. This attitude permeates all the way up. So why start with welfare when talking about cutting the federal budget? Why not talk about changing the program to be more effective?
                  
                  Anyway, the question really is, where do we start? Trump had a perfect opportunity to put in place conservative principles on the budget, but he fell into the same trap everyone else does - he gave everyone a gift in the form of a tax cut even though it added to the budget. This is just an example. I'm not blaming Trump, but he had an opportunity. I just think he realized that if he didn't pull off some kind of big give-a-way, his supporters would turn on him.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     "Why not talk about changing the program to be more effective?"
                     
                     Money.  Money and power.  When the politicians lose control over billions of dollars they don't like it.
                     
                     But I do have a problem with the idea that allowing people to retain control over what they have worked to earn is a give-away.  Implicit in it is that government, not the individual, actually owns that wealth.  Something I highly disagree with.
                     
                     Either way, though, it will be very interesting to see what the govt. actually takes in in taxes after the big tax cut.  I hear rumors it is greater than before the cut, but it will take a few years to actually know.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        We all have to pay taxes in order to get a lot of basic services. I suppose you could institute an a la carte sort of tax system where you just pay for the things you use. So you'd have to pay for police and fire; etc. But society just doesn't work that way. It's like insurance, right. Those of us who are healthy end up paying for those who are fat and lazy and get sick because of it. Why should I have to pay the same insurance rate as somebody who is obese?
                        
                        Are you saying that you shouldn't pay any tax at all? I would argue that our system is set up so that each of us owes something to run the government and that those of us who make more money should pay more in. However, you seem to be saying that because government is so poorly run and wastes so much money, that you don't want to pay for that nor do you want to pay for the programs you don't like. If so, I think you're inadvertently arguing for anarchy because we can't really choose which programs we pay for because we're going to like some and not others. Some will benefit us directly and others will not. That's the price of being part of a society.
                        
                        However, it is frustrating to pay a lot of taxes only to watch that money squandered by ineffective and wasteful government.

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           "We all have to pay taxes in order to get a lot of basic services."
                           
                           We do.  We all live here together and should all share in the costs.  But instead of doing that we take (taxes) and give it to others, and then to compound the error we only require half the people to contribute anything at all!  In my eyes there is something grievously wrong with that picture.  And no, until ObamaCare, it was not like insurance: insurance that we voluntarily buy, something that benefits the purchaser rather than someone else.
                           
                           No, we all owe tax.  And we will never agree 100% on where it should be spent; that's part of life.  And although it is neither "fair" nor "right" that some pay more than others for the exact same product, if we want a country at all it is necessary.  And we do that...then decide we want more so we can give it away and take that, too!
                           
                           "However, it is frustrating to pay a lot of taxes only to watch that money squandered by ineffective and wasteful government."
                           
                           I agree.  but it is even more frustrating (to me) to pay those taxes and then watch as they are given to people that have learned to work the system rather than produce something themselves.  And then, as if that wasn't bad enough, we don't support (as we could and should) those people that truly need help.  We don't have a "safety net" any more; we have a cradle to grave support system for 150 million people!

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              There are lots of places to turn with one's frustration when it comes to government. I just don't understand why some turn to the poor to vent their frustrations and why some turn to the billion dollar contracts handed out to companies who lobby politicians and then deliver very little value from those contracts. There's an awful lot of malfeasance going on in the government and the system is gamed at all levels. Why do you choose to focus on this one level?
                              
                              Obviously, the welfare system should be designed to move people off it and provide help for a limited, but effective period of time.
                              
                              Just as a brief example, which we've discussed elsewhere - sports stadiums paid for by the taxpayer. Why should billionaires get free rides building their stadiums when they are billionaires?

                              replyreport
         2. 86

            gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            HELLOOO(AGREEMENT) & AMEN...……..Someone is MAKING SENSE here!

            replyreport