- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Innovative plan for reducing national deficit
Posted on 12/22/19 at 6:44 pm to samson73103
Posted on 12/22/19 at 6:44 pm to samson73103
That would barely make a dent.
Reducing the debt in any meaningful way would require either raising taxes, reducing social security, or reducing Medicaid/Medicare
Reducing the debt in any meaningful way would require either raising taxes, reducing social security, or reducing Medicaid/Medicare
1
Posted on 12/22/19 at 6:46 pm to 93and99
quote:
Typical Liberal
Not really, Ike was a Republican and adopted a policy that worked.
Ex military too!
Trump ducked service and now he wants to waste money when a real republican has already shown him the way.
I feel sorry you youg whippersnappers were not alive to see Republicans who cared about their country before their own pockets.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 7:06 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
I feel sorry you youg whippersnappers were not alive to see Republicans who cared about their country before their own pockets.
You mean the one's who increased the welfare state ?
Posted on 12/22/19 at 7:12 pm to 93and99
why worry about reducing the debt? just walk away from it a new system is being formed as we speak,since fed is backed by nothing, we are going back to the gold standard.we are currently on the petro dollar
Posted on 12/22/19 at 9:38 pm to samson73103
We withheld Ukraine aid
Why were they getting it in first place?
Why were they getting it in first place?
Posted on 12/22/19 at 9:47 pm to samson73103
3) end parasitic entitlement programs.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 9:57 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
feel sorry you youg whippersnappers were not alive to see Republicans who cared about their country before their own pockets.
Right out of DU.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 10:06 pm to Bayoutigre
All monetary systems are based on trust and supply/demand. Do you really want South Africa to have a huge influence on the value of our currency? Or Venezuela and Saudi Arabia if you go the Petro route? Or a bunch of people living in the artic pumping out bitcoins?
Posted on 12/22/19 at 10:08 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
The receipts are what has caused the deficit to increase
2007 Tax receipts: $2.567T Spending: %2.728T Deficit: $160B
2019 Tax reeipts: $3.437T Spending: $4.529T Deficit: $1,091T.
Clearly we have a tax problem.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 10:11 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:You could take all discretionary budget is $1.3Trillion of $4.5Trillion budget. About 28%. Even if half it were "prok barrel"... you're only at about 14% of the budget. SS and Medicare are the ultimate pork barrel spending. Buys a lot of votes.
Earmarks are just the tip of the pork barrel iceberg.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 10:15 pm to funnystuff
quote:Only the last two. You could tax every penny over $1,000,000 in annual income... and you wouldn't cover the current deficit.
Reducing the debt in any meaningful way would require either raising taxes, reducing social security, or reducing Medicaid/Medicare
Not even "the rich" have enough money to close the gap. Even it you took all of it.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 7:46 am to Taxing Authority
At this point, taxing only the rich the probably insufficient to close the deficit (if that is the goal). It’ll require across the board tax increases combined with cuts to our biggest areas of expenditure. But no, I disagree with the assertion that tax increases couldn’t have any impact on reducing the deficit.
But if changes in all three are already required to make any meaningful dent today, just imagine how screwed we’ll be in 40 years when the debt will be over 150% of GDP
But if changes in all three are already required to make any meaningful dent today, just imagine how screwed we’ll be in 40 years when the debt will be over 150% of GDP
This post was edited on 12/23/19 at 7:47 am
Posted on 12/23/19 at 8:45 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Try getting a white kid under 30 to landscape or put on a roof.
Call my 19 year old brother. Honky as shite. Owns his own landscaping business.
The soft bigotry of low expectations from certain folks is astounding.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 9:25 am to samson73103
Charge 2%, $10 minimum on all money transfers outside the US.
1% consumption tax on all non durable good purchases.
Minimum Federal income tax of $100 for married couples filing and $50 for individuals. No working people should pay 0$ in Federal income taxes.
1% consumption tax on all non durable good purchases.
Minimum Federal income tax of $100 for married couples filing and $50 for individuals. No working people should pay 0$ in Federal income taxes.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 9:38 am to Cheese Grits
If that’s the argument you want to take, fine. But just understand what you are advocating...
If workers aren’t currently willing to do a job, the number 1 way to incentivize them to do it is to raise the wages. I guarantee you that a white 25 year old would be willing to do those things if you paid them more than twelve bucks an hour. But firms have no need to raise wages because they can import dirt cheap labor.
If you support the import of that dirt cheap labor, that’s fine. But you at least better acknowledge that it essentially amounts to a massive subsidy for big agriculture and construction business, and it’s doing that at the expense of increasing income inequality. But if you’re pro big business and you don’t care about equality, by all means, keep importing cheap labor
If workers aren’t currently willing to do a job, the number 1 way to incentivize them to do it is to raise the wages. I guarantee you that a white 25 year old would be willing to do those things if you paid them more than twelve bucks an hour. But firms have no need to raise wages because they can import dirt cheap labor.
If you support the import of that dirt cheap labor, that’s fine. But you at least better acknowledge that it essentially amounts to a massive subsidy for big agriculture and construction business, and it’s doing that at the expense of increasing income inequality. But if you’re pro big business and you don’t care about equality, by all means, keep importing cheap labor
Posted on 12/23/19 at 10:27 am to samson73103
Sell 40% of all National Parks to developers should zero out the national debt. Boom!
Posted on 12/23/19 at 10:43 am to samson73103
Previous candidate Rep Ron Paul spoke thus too.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News