Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

American Jobs Plan


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

I ad hope Trump would bring something to the table on spending - he couldn't, and while he didn't spend more per year than Obama he certainly didn't stop and this Biden train ... good gawd ahmighty

3 trillion "infrastructure" and 2 trillion "covid relief" in first 6 months

5 trillion

 

might as well give everyone in the USA $100,000 and go 100 trillion in debt - its funny money now

We don't have an infrastructure bill passed :shrug: 

And the bold is only true if you focus on the first four years of Obama's Presidency where we were on the brink of a global financial crisis.  If you look at the second half of his Presidency where economic conditions were significantly more similar you'll see it's flat out wrong (and we can even give Trump a pass for 2020 if you like):  https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whoknew said:

Comparing an individual's budget behavior to a country's doesn't seem to make much sense. The priorities are different and the ramifications of being in debt are far different.

Exactly. 

 

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

might as well give everyone in the USA $100,000 and go 100 trillion in debt - its funny money now

We should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Americans support fixing roads and bridges, increasing pay for elderly caregivers, expanding high-speed broadband, fixing the electrical grid and making buildings and homes more energy efficient at a clip of 70% or better....gonna be a tough sell if the GOP can actually get a proposal of their own out there.  Only the bold counts as "infrastructure to the GOP apparently.  

Party of the working class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2021 at 5:50 PM, joffer said:

I wish it wasn’t true, but govt spending is almost always good.

and where does government get the money to spend?  I disagree wholeheartedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So Americans support fixing roads and bridges, increasing pay for elderly caregivers, expanding high-speed broadband, fixing the electrical grid and making buildings and homes more energy efficient at a clip of 70% or better....gonna be a tough sell if the GOP can actually get a proposal of their own out there.  Only the bold counts as "infrastructure to the GOP apparently.  

Party of the working class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The honest ones will include broadband and electrical grids and say about 70% is true infrastructure.  I have seen it acknowledged by a gop’er on fox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

The honest ones will include broadband and electrical grids and say about 70% is true infrastructure.  I have seen it acknowledged by a gop’er on fox

About the only one on that list that's head scratching is the caregiver one :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/15/2021 at 1:47 PM, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

So you are among the group that believes that economic multipliers are a fiction?  Because if not then "spending is not spending".

30 trillion in debt ... no, I think we can all agree spending to get out of national debt is a massive failure of an idea, can't we ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

30 trillion in debt ... no, I think we can all agree spending to get out of national debt is a massive failure of an idea, can't we ?

With the exception of WWII and Covid, the entire debt is a function of tax cuts.  Either a direct result of cutting off the revenue streams or a result of bailing out the economy that crashed as a result of one bubble or another created by the tax cuts.   So no, informed people will not agree.  And to the extent that spending grows the economy it is how we get out from under the debt.  You know what tax cuts always promise but don't really deliver beyond the bubbles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

With the exception of WWII and Covid, the entire debt is a function of tax cuts.  Either a direct result of cutting off the revenue streams or a result of bailing out the economy that crashed as a result of one bubble or another created by the tax cuts.   So no, informed people will not agree.  And to the extent that spending grows the economy it is how we get out from under the debt.  You know what tax cuts always promise but don't really deliver beyond the bubbles.

you could tax the American people 50% of their income ... you could send 10 trillion a year to the Fed Govt ... and they'd spend 12 trillion

 

no, the problem with debt isn't that the Fed Govt doesn't bring in enough money (4 trillion?) ... its the 8 trillion they're spending

 

informed people should understand that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stealthycat said:

you could tax the American people 50% of their income ... you could send 10 trillion a year to the Fed Govt ... and they'd spend 12 trillion

 

no, the problem with debt isn't that the Fed Govt doesn't bring in enough money (4 trillion?) ... its the 8 trillion they're spending

 

informed people should understand that

Informed people can look at the spending and revenue and differentiate between permanently adding to the deficits, one offs that address an immediate problems, and new spending with defined supporting revenue sources.     

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Informed people can look at the spending and revenue and differentiate between permanently adding to the deficits, one offs that address an immediate problems, and new spending with defined supporting revenue sources.     

we as a the people of the United States have entrusted the Fed Govt on finances that they are totally incapable of handling to the tune of 30 trillion in nation debt

if the US Fed Govt had spent 30 trillion LESS ... we'd be about break even wouldn't we ? sure, we could have taxed the citizens 30 trillion more too but is that the Fed Govt's job really? to tax tax tax in order to cover their spending OR should the US Fed Govt SPEND in accordance with revenue? 

what a marvelous idea isn't it? don't spend more than you bring in. Simple. Effective.  

 

$85,000 per person

https://www.pgpf.org/national-debt-clock

when it all boils down, the Fed Govt has spent 30 trillion more than it had to spend - it can be justified in a thousand different ways and blames can be thrown around but financial responsibility and accountability is 100% lacking in the US Fed Govt and that's a fact. The Democrats and Republicans have no interest in the national debt anymore - its grown beyond controllable and in the future the USA will default on its debt IMO

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we as a the people of the United States have entrusted the Fed Govt on finances that they are totally incapable of handling to the tune of 30 trillion in nation debt

if the US Fed Govt had spent 30 trillion LESS ... we'd be about break even wouldn't we ? sure, we could have taxed the citizens 30 trillion more too but is that the Fed Govt's job really? to tax tax tax in order to cover their spending OR should the US Fed Govt SPEND in accordance with revenue? 

what a marvelous idea isn't it? don't spend more than you bring in. Simple. Effective.  

 

$85,000 per person

https://www.pgpf.org/national-debt-clock

when it all boils down, the Fed Govt has spent 30 trillion more than it had to spend - it can be justified in a thousand different ways and blames can be thrown around but financial responsibility and accountability is 100% lacking in the US Fed Govt and that's a fact. The Democrats and Republicans have no interest in the national debt anymore - its grown beyond controllable and in the future the USA will default on its debt IMO

 

We are $30 trillion in debt because voters voted for tax cuts.  And since government was costing less they demanded more of it.   "We the People" are ultimately the government.  Cutting the allowance to the extravagant kid in the candy store has proven a failure because the extravagant kid in the candy store isn't the government, isn't the welfare queen but the voters that triggered a political revolution in 1980 based on stupid metaphors that are still taken on blind faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

We are $30 trillion in debt because voters voted for tax cuts.  And since government was costing less they demanded more of it.   "We the People" are ultimately the government.  Cutting the allowance to the extravagant kid in the candy store has proven a failure because the extravagant kid in the candy store isn't the government, isn't the welfare queen but the voters that triggered a political revolution in 1980 based on stupid metaphors that are still taken on blind faith.

no

the Fed Govt SHOULD have looked and said hey, we're bringing in XXX money and therefore, we need to spend YYY

as with any entity that has an income, you should not spend vastly more amounts of money than you bring in ESPECIALLY when that income comes from taking money from people's income

We the People are the exact opposite of the Govt - the Fed Govt is here to serve us, not the other way around

 

its over now - we might as well be 100Trilion in debt, its funny money now, its irrelevant .... and the elected Fed Govt people are making fortunes for their friends and families and campaign contributors and the blue collar workers of America continue to get the shaft IMO and its wrong, all of it 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

no

the Fed Govt SHOULD have looked and said hey, we're bringing in XXX money and therefore, we need to spend YYY

as with any entity that has an income, you should not spend vastly more amounts of money than you bring in ESPECIALLY when that income comes from taking money from people's income

We the People are the exact opposite of the Govt - the Fed Govt is here to serve us, not the other way around

 

its over now - we might as well be 100Trilion in debt, its funny money now, its irrelevant .... and the elected Fed Govt people are making fortunes for their friends and families and campaign contributors and the blue collar workers of America continue to get the shaft IMO and its wrong, all of it 

 

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

no

the Fed Govt SHOULD have looked and said hey, we're bringing in XXX money and therefore, we need to spend YYY

as with any entity that has an income, you should not spend vastly more amounts of money than you bring in ESPECIALLY when that income comes from taking money from people's income

We the People are the exact opposite of the Govt - the Fed Govt is here to serve us, not the other way around

 

its over now - we might as well be 100Trilion in debt, its funny money now, its irrelevant .... and the elected Fed Govt people are making fortunes for their friends and families and campaign contributors and the blue collar workers of America continue to get the shaft IMO and its wrong, all of it 

 

We don't get to disconnect our vote for the politicians we voted for who then in turn write these bills.  So how do your voting habits change next cycle if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We don't get to disconnect our vote for the politicians we voted for who then in turn write these bills.  So how do your voting habits change next cycle if at all?

term limits is the key - its very easy to keep people in your pocket when they're in for 30 years

change it to a 2 or 4 year maximum - tie the compensation given to elected House and Senate directly to how they handle the debt and budget maybe? think performance = salary 

right now, there is no accountability - that has to change IMO and I'm not sure exactly but its literally grotesque what this Govt has done over the past 12 years :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more to the point - I'll vote straight GOP I imagine because of what the Democrats have done the past 4 1/2 years

that will not help the spending this Govt is doing, I just hope the ones I help vote in can make a plea for change but the fed debt is a lost cause now, its literally over

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

term limits is the key - its very easy to keep people in your pocket when they're in for 30 years

change it to a 2 or 4 year maximum - tie the compensation given to elected House and Senate directly to how they handle the debt and budget maybe? think performance = salary 

right now, there is no accountability - that has to change IMO and I'm not sure exactly but its literally grotesque what this Govt has done over the past 12 years :( 

none of this changes anything about what I said.  Their accountability comes due each time they are up for reelection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

more to the point - I'll vote straight GOP I imagine because of what the Democrats have done the past 4 1/2 years

that will not help the spending this Govt is doing, I just hope the ones I help vote in can make a plea for change but the fed debt is a lost cause now, its literally over

 

This does not compute....4.5 years puts us back to 2016.  The Democrats could do literally NOTHING until 2018 and even then, at best they could obstruct.  The primary policy that impacts this discussion over the timeframe you have given is the tax cuts, passed 100% by the GOP, but you bring up the Dems.  Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Commish said:

This does not compute....4.5 years puts us back to 2016.  The Democrats could do literally NOTHING until 2018 and even then, at best they could obstruct.  The primary policy that impacts this discussion over the timeframe you have given is the tax cuts, passed 100% by the GOP, but you bring up the Dems.  Why?

because the American people getting a little bit more money in their pockets is vastly more important than a Fed Govt taking more after spending 30 trillion over what it brings in

When did the national debt go absolutely bonkers? Obama took the national debt in 2008 at $9.2 trillion

in 8 years, he added 9.7 trillion ... in 8 years the Fed Govt went from bringing in 2.52 trillion to 3.27 trillion

Why? that's 1 trillion a year more debt added !

and why did the Trump administration keep up the spending? taking it from 18.9 to 23.2 ? I mean Trump didn't double it but he certainly didn't stop adding and now, Biden is pacing it at 3-4 trillion a year added

that's why I blame Democrats - spend spend spend, tax tax tax and when they spend so much more than they possibly bring in, they blame that we're only taxing 35% income and it needs to be higher? gawd I hate that 

 

 

 

30 trillion - does anyone even realize the amount of money that is? 

I discussed with a guy over the weekend this very thing

Look at the numbers ..... the US Fed Govt has brought in more money each year NOT less over the last decade with the first Obama years being the exception it looks like yet the spending? has risen incredibly 

This isn't a taxation issue - its gross spending !

 

 

 

 

2004 $7.0

2005 $7.6

2006 $8.2

2007 $8.7

2008 $9.2

2009 $10.6

2010 $12.3

2011 $14.0

2012 $15.2

2013 $16.4

2014 $17.3

2015 $18.1

2016 $18.9

2017 $19.9

2018 $20.5

2019 $21.9

2020 $23.2

April 2020  $23.7

 

compare to what the Fed Govt brought in

 

FY 2021$3.86 (estimated)

FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)

FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)

FY 2018$3.33 trillion

FY 2017$3.32 trillion

FY 2016$3.27 trillion

FY 2015$3.25 trillion

FY 2014$3.02 trillion

FY 2013$2.77 trillion

FY 2012$2.45 trillion

FY 2011$2.30 trillion

FY 2010$2.16 trillion

FY 2009$2.10 trillion

FY 2008$2.52 trillion

FY 2007$2.57 trillion

FY 2006$2.41 trillion

FY 2005$2.15 trillion

FY 2004$1.88 trillion

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

This does not compute....4.5 years puts us back to 2016.  The Democrats could do literally NOTHING until 2018 and even then, at best they could obstruct.  The primary policy that impacts this discussion over the timeframe you have given is the tax cuts, passed 100% by the GOP, but you bring up the Dems.  Why?

because the American people getting a little bit more money in their pockets is vastly more important than a Fed Govt taking more after spending 30 trillion over what it brings in

......

Not a single word of this answers my question :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FairWarning said:

I guess we're good as long as people still want to buy US Bonds.

I'd think so.....Americans own most of those.  The days of the economic principles you and I learned (guessing on age here GB...sorry if I'm off) are gone in those terms.  Our deficits are looked at simply as "money we have yet to collect".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Commish said:

Not a single word of this answers my question :lol: 

you don't see the numbers on Obama's administration (he was a Democrat) he doubled the national debt - it took 200 years to get it to 9 trillion and in 8 years he took it to 18 trillion - that's just incredible isn't it ?

Trump didn't escalate that spending - he could have added but he just kept the pace

Biden (he's a Democrat) has spent what, 4 trillion in less than 6 months? 

Democrats - spend, spend, spend

 

 

20 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Look at the numbers - the Fed Govt got more money every year (not a massive amount but more) over the last decade ..... taxation wasn't the problem, massive spending was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you don't see the numbers on Obama's administration (he was a Democrat) he doubled the national debt - it took 200 years to get it to 9 trillion and in 8 years he took it to 18 trillion - that's just incredible isn't it ?

Trump didn't escalate that spending - he could have added but he just kept the pace

Biden (he's a Democrat) has spent what, 4 trillion in less than 6 months? 

Democrats - spend, spend, spend

Again....none of this answers my question :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
20 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Look at the numbers - the Fed Govt got more money every year (not a massive amount but more) over the last decade ..... taxation wasn't the problem, massive spending was

So you will still vote for the party that when they controlled everything looked at the situation where spending was higher than revenue so they naturally increased spending (on themselves) and reduced revenue (by cutting their taxes) and called it a great victory.  And then you blamed the other, pretty much powerless side for all of this.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

So you will still vote for the party that when they controlled everything looked at the situation where spending was higher than revenue so they naturally increased spending (on themselves) and reduced revenue (by cutting their taxes) and called it a great victory.  And then you blamed the other, pretty much powerless side for all of this.   

Democrats had 8 years of Obama, and 4 years here of Biden, and we had 4 of Trump

Of these 16 years - 2008 to 2024 - Democrats have had the White House 12 of those - agreed ?  that's 75% right ?

We will see national debt go from 9 trillion to maybe 35 trillion, possible 40 trillion

You're blaming GOP for that? I showed you Fed Govt brought in more money each year over the last decade. Why did the Fed Govt think it best to spend 5 trillion more ?

Powerless ?  Have you not seen the spending in the last 3 months ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Powerless ?  Have you not seen the spending in the last 3 months ? 

To be fair, the last two Dems had to start their administrations by pulling us out of horrible economies, both inherited from GOP presidents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Amused to Death said:

To be fair, the last two Dems had to start their administrations by pulling us out of horrible economies, both inherited from GOP presidents.

we can justify just about anything - GW had 9-11, Trump had covid ........... Obama had the housing crash, I mean every President has challenges 

but never has spending been what it is today - its sick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we can justify just about anything - GW had 9-11, Trump had covid ........... Obama had the housing crash, I mean every President has challenges 

but never has spending been what it is today - its sick

I agree that the spending is a little nuts - but you can’t argue against debt and raising taxes and still want things infrastructure brings

i just wish somebody would do a complete revamp of taxes and distribution - and corporations should fund infrastructure while personal taxes fund other programs

That would bring about change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Powerless ?  Have you not seen the spending in the last 3 months ? 

Yes.  It is good to see that Biden isn't making the same mistakes that Obama made and short thrifting the recovery.  He also isn't making the mistakes that Obama made that the Republicans are honest players at the negotiating table.    Refreshing to see a democrat not tip toe around for a change allowing the country to deteriorate.  Now if he would just raise taxes above and beyond what would pay for his ongoing proposals.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

I agree that the spending is a little nuts - but you can’t argue against debt and raising taxes and still want things infrastructure brings

i just wish somebody would do a complete revamp of taxes and distribution - and corporations should fund infrastructure while personal taxes fund other programs

That would bring about change.  

yes I can argue it

how?

the Fed Govt cuts costs to gather the funds for infrastructure and take it from where you ask ? find us a link of what the Fed Govt spends its money on, and you and I can line item delete a bunch of things and come up with tens of billions in wasted money I bet

cut across the board 5% spending and use that money

spending  1-3 trillion more every year than you make isn't wise, its not fiscally responsible and its what or Govt has done every year since Obama took office

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Now if he would just raise taxes above and beyond what would pay for his ongoing proposals.

how much do you want taxes increased to get 30 trillion in debt down to 10trillion ? 

give me a ballpark number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes I can argue it

how?

the Fed Govt cuts costs to gather the funds for infrastructure and take it from where you ask ? find us a link of what the Fed Govt spends its money on, and you and I can line item delete a bunch of things and come up with tens of billions in wasted money I bet

cut across the board 5% spending and use that money

spending  1-3 trillion more every year than you make isn't wise, its not fiscally responsible and its what or Govt has done every year since Obama took office

 

Great exercise here. Going to start a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

how much do you want taxes increased to get 30 trillion in debt down to 10trillion ? 

give me a ballpark number

There is no need to do this.  We need to raise taxes to cover our outflows.  We need to be able to pay as we go including paying down some debt during the good times such that we can be in a position to borrow during bad times.  We need to have bond traders investing in productive but riskier enterprise during gravy days rather than government.   When we do ask for the people to fund government via bonds it needs to be an investment into something whether a flattened economy during a downturn, or fending off a global threat, or things like infrastructures.  We should never be asking investors to take on the tax burden of the upper income tax brackets. 

So there is no number.  But since we are at about 25% of GDP (all taxes combined) and the typical industrial nation is around 33% and those Bernie Sanders' European nations around 42% I think we have plenty of room to grow without losing any competitive advantages.  

But that 25% is wrong anyway.  Since the average employed American is also paying about 9% for health insurance premiums which need to get added in for apples to apples comparisons.  And I'm pretty certain that the same is true in other places such that we ultimately pay more in for things that are covered by taxes in most of the rest of the western world.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

We need to raise taxes to cover our outflows.

ok show me when this last worked

what years did the Fed Govt spend equal to or less ?

I'll wait

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes I can argue it

how?

the Fed Govt cuts costs to gather the funds for infrastructure and take it from where you ask ? find us a link of what the Fed Govt spends its money on, and you and I can line item delete a bunch of things and come up with tens of billions in wasted money I bet

cut across the board 5% spending and use that money

spending  1-3 trillion more every year than you make isn't wise, its not fiscally responsible and its what or Govt has done every year since Obama took office

 

I think I get to the same place with my idea.  If individual tax pays for various programs, those expenses would be reduced/eliminated due to tax payer pressure on politicians.  If infrastructure is funded by corporate tax, it may be all good (unless that’s too much for individual tax to fund).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

ok show me when this last worked

what years did the Fed Govt spend equal to or less ?

I'll wait

In 2000 we had projected surpluses as far out as one could see - remember.  Then we said that you could do better than the government with that money and elected "W" and FY2001 was the last surplus.  A surplus created by the 1993 budget that raised taxes that democrats jammed through Congress with zero republican votes that helped shore up the recovering economy that starts when HW said never mind to his ill fated and foolish "read my lips" campaign promise.   A tag team of Americans earning more at the same time taxes were higher bringing in much more revenue than either scenario would have done alone. 

Now as a result of these tax hikes and other factors the GOP took over the House during the midterms and went about reforming welfare and passing the balance budget acts of 1997 and what not.  Legislation which was all counterproductive in reducing deficits and/or increasing surpluses.  Yes the fiscally responsible conservatives that now try to offer a revisionist history of the period thwarted the surpluses they now try to take credit for.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

I think I get to the same place with my idea.  If individual tax pays for various programs, those expenses would be reduced/eliminated due to tax payer pressure on politicians.  If infrastructure is funded by corporate tax, it may be all good (unless that’s too much for individual tax to fund).

Well the Cato foundation much to its dismay has written more than one article on how spending is inversely related to taxes.  That is when taxes go down spending goes up and when taxes go up spending goes down.  They tried to find all kinds of "coincidences" to discredit this idea, but ultimately determined that this is a just a classic demand curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Well the Cato foundation much to its dismay has written more than one article on how spending is inversely related to taxes.  That is when taxes go down spending goes up and when taxes go up spending goes down.  They tried to find all kinds of "coincidences" to discredit this idea, but ultimately determined that this is a just a classic demand curve.

Sure but has to start somewhere - we have to stop modifying a broken tax system and build one from scratch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Dude said:

Sure but has to start somewhere - we have to stop modifying a broken tax system and build one from scratch

I though I was agreeing with you that if individuals had to pay full freight on those programs via higher taxes they likely demand spending cuts to lower that burden.  And if corporations were responsible for infrastructure costs they might go either way since infrastructure spending is more of an investment as opposed to an operational cost.

I want us to pay our own way - at least when the economy is strong and there are no crisis going on.  While I have preferences on how this looks, I don't think the how matters as much as doing it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

See the Bill Clinton years. Had a budget surplus for multiple years.

budget isn't total spending

 

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 31.6% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget.65

FY 2001 - $133 billion

FY 2000 - $18 billion

FY 1999 - $130 billion

FY 1998 - $113 billion

FY 1997 - $189 billion

FY 1996 - $251 billion

FY 1995 - $281 billion

FY 1994 - $281 billion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I think I get to the same place with my idea.  If individual tax pays for various programs, those expenses would be reduced/eliminated due to tax payer pressure on politicians.  If infrastructure is funded by corporate tax, it may be all good (unless that’s too much for individual tax to fund).

when you tax corporations more - what will they do ? raise the price of goods/services - ie the working people, the lower class, poorer people pay more and get poorer

not a good plan, ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I want us to pay our own way - at least when the economy is strong and there are no crisis going on.  While I have preferences on how this looks, I don't think the how matters as much as doing it.  

there is always a crisis .... 9-11, a virus, European countries defaulting on debt, Russia collapsing , middle eastern wars ... always something

we will never pay our own way because it doesn't matter how much the Fed Govt brings in, they'll spend more

vast amounts more

 

do you REALLY think the Fed Govt in the monstrous state its in will EVER spend LESS than it brings in ? never, ever ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...