Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Deficits Don't Matter... again

24567

Comments

  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,384 Founders Club
    I hope the Dems win in 2020 so the GOP will get TUFF on deficits again.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    How does that chart refute that we spend too much? If you simply reduced Federal spending to 2012 levels, hardly a year of fiscal austerity, you'd almost entirely eliminate the current budget deficit.

    We spend too fucking much and showing me the spending rates of other countries doesn't negate that fact. The Federal Government is too damn big and is now spending money on programs and polices that it was never intended to be involved in.
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    How does that chart refute that we spend too much? If you simply reduced Federal spending to 2012 levels, hardly a year of fiscal austerity, you'd almost entirely eliminate the current budget deficit.

    It's like you've never heard of price inflation and interest.

    We spend too fucking much and showing me the spending rates of other countries doesn't negate that fact. The Federal Government is too damn big and is now spending money on programs and polices that it was never intended to be involved in.

    Like what and sez who?

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it

    Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion

    Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.
    I agree, lets cut spending. Where do you want to cut? Btw, how much did you complain about deficit spending when Obama was in office?
    I complained about spending under Obama. But the larger issue was the revenue drop from 2009 through 2012 that caused the huge deficits. That with tarp ($600 billion) and the stimulus ($800 billion).

    The difference is Obama took a $1.5 trillion deficit and turned it into $500 billion. Trump is taking a $500 billion and turning it into over a trillion.

    And I'm sure you never ever complained about the deficit under Obama. What's the difference now?
    So you can't tell us where you'd cut spending. I'm shocked.
    Where would you increase taxes?
    I wouldn't. We don't have a deficit because we tax too little. We spend too fucking much.
    A quick glance at other nation's fiscal decisions appears to contradict your logic. For that matter, this nation's fiscal decisions from 2010-2016 kinda fits the same pattern.

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm#indicator-chart

    but, sure
    How does that chart refute that we spend too much? If you simply reduced Federal spending to 2012 levels, hardly a year of fiscal austerity, you'd almost entirely eliminate the current budget deficit.

    We spend too fucking much and showing me the spending rates of other countries doesn't negate that fact. The Federal Government is too damn big and is now spending money on programs and polices that it was never intended to be involved in.
    Ok. Where would you cut to get us to 2012. Let's hear this.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,947

    I hope the Dems win in 2020 so the GOP will get TUFF on deficits again.

    I'm really really enjoying the Democrats desperation and just incompetence in general
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.

    Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.

    Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?

    Perfect. Dumb down the populace to create Republican voters for generations. We need more people like Trump in office. And I love Rivers catching on fire. Such a beautiful thing in the night sky. What could go wrong there. Then we could be India and 20 years later blame our shithole on socialism.
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    "The Congress shall have power;"

    "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    SFGbob said:

    I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.

    Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?

    It's almost like these departments and programs were created for a reason. Seriously one of the dumbest posts I've seen.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.

    Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?

    Perfect. Dumb down the populace to create Republican voters for generations. We need more people like Trump in office. And I love Rivers catching on fire. Such a beautiful thing in the night sky. What could go wrong there. Then we could be India and 20 years later blame our shithole on socialism.
    Hondo, just because you can't wipe your own ass without a government instruction manual doesn't mean that without a Federal Department of Education everyone else wouldn't be able to get an education.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Bob loves old poor people.


  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    AZDuck said:

    "The Congress shall have power;"

    "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
    We'll that's the rub. Prior to the 1930s "General Welfare" was never interpreted by the Courts to mean grandma's hip replacement. That's a great benefit for grandma, but not much a "General" benefit for the country.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.

    Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?

    Perfect. Dumb down the populace to create Republican voters for generations. We need more people like Trump in office. And I love Rivers catching on fire. Such a beautiful thing in the night sky. What could go wrong there. Then we could be India and 20 years later blame our shithole on socialism.
    Hondo, just because you can't wipe your own ass without a government instruction manual doesn't mean that without a Federal Department of Education everyone else wouldn't be able to get an education.
    Where do you think our education system would be without federal mandates on minimum education? We'd get more shit like Texas trying to write Hillary and Anne Frank out of history.
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    edited September 2018
    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    "The Congress shall have power;"

    "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
    We'll that's the rub. Prior to the 1930s "General Welfare" was never interpreted by the Courts to mean grandma's hip replacement. That's a great benefit for grandma, but not much a "General" benefit for the country.
    Prior to the 1930's "separate but equal" was how the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    "The Congress shall have power;"

    "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
    We'll that's the rub. Prior to the 1930s "General Welfare" was never interpreted by the Courts to mean grandma's hip replacement. That's a great benefit for grandma, but not much a "General" benefit for the country.
    It's a benefit to the country to spread the burden rather than watch families crumble into poverty and everything that comes with it.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    AZDuck said:

    "The Congress shall have power;"

    "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
    We'll that's the rub. Prior to the 1930s "General Welfare" was never interpreted by the Courts to mean grandma's hip replacement. That's a great benefit for grandma, but not much a "General" benefit for the country.
    When did "blacks" get full votes and when could women start voting?
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    Anne Frank? Got a link? And there are all kinds of historical figures that don't make it into high school history books. Hell I see my kids' history text books, they've completely whitewashed all kinds of historical figures and elevated minor and insignificant figures mostly on account of gender and race.

    Again you think there should be a Federal mandate that compels states to include historical figures in their text books that the Federal government deems to be important.

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    Anne Frank? Got a link? And there are all kinds of historical figures that don't make it into high school history books. Hell I see my kids' history text books, they've completely whitewashed all kinds of historical figures and elevated minor and insignificant figures mostly on account of gender and race.

    Again you think there should be a Federal mandate that compels states to include historical figures in their text books that the Federal government deems to be important.

    Sorry I meant Helen Keller.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/texas-votes-to-remove-hillary-clinton-helen-keller-from-curriculum.html

    Ok I supported my comment. Now support yours about whitewashing history books and elevating minor figures based on gender or race.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,138
    edited September 2018

    Bob loves old poor people.


    No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.

    My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    SFGbob said:

    Bob loves old poor people.


    No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.

    My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
    You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:

    (1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
    (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
    (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.

    This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.

    Market choices, huh? Crazy.
Sign In or Register to comment.