Big "debt deal"? Just more kicking the can, kicking the can, kicking the can.

Man... Those are sure some pretty scary and frightening numbers !!!

I better start voting libural because I'm sure you've told me accurate information here...

 

Yes, I was thinking about the nursing homes when wrote it. There might be more brain power there than in the college dormitories where the recently harvested them in Wisconsin to put the Democrats in charge of the courts. Senior citizens have a lot more common sense than many brain washed college students.

 

Absolutely they do.... Which is why most of them vote conservative unless someone prefills their ballot out for them.

If someone else is involved in the process too much they suddenly tend to vote overwhelmingly liberal.

If you still have a pulse, somewhere out there there is a Democrat who is more than eager to carry your ballot to you and take it away.....
Don't trouble yourself with the details, we'll handle it.....

 

You listed a lot of specifics but what you are really saying I think is that the budget can't be balanced without raising taxes; I agree. In fact, we'll need massive tax increases. But I have absolutely zero interest in doing that until we have a balanced budget amendment, otherwise you guys will just blow all the money.

 

yep, we saw that last in 2020, republicans got caught casting Trump votes for dead people... sad!

 

Its not so much the size of the debt thats the issue, but more what that debt represents. A lot of it is just money owed to Americans in the form if pensions and bonds and such. Thats good debt. It represents Americans investing in America.

Even the debt owed to foreign entities can be good. Its can represent investments in America. Tho it can also represent those entities taking advantage of or even holding piwer over America. It depends mostly on how wisely we took the debt (and our 'leaders' havn't been very wise lately).

The real problem is printing money to pay for things we couldn't afford. This is just a means of unofficial taxation- it reduces the value of EVERYONES purchasing power. The govt gets more and the people get less.

 

republicans pretty much only cut in order to then give tax cuts for the rich, thus negating the cuts if any

 

Thank you! It's good to see that someone really does 'get it'. And, on top of everything else, because of the dynamic of the math involved, the interest on all that debt eventually presents an obligation that becomes impossible to meet unless everything else in the world's economy spirals out of control and we start adding endless numbers of zeros onto everything we buy and sell.

We could easily come to live in a reality where you make millions of dollars of years at an ordinary middle-class job, but you pay several million dollars for a car and hundreds of millions of dollars for a house. But we're told that the Federal Reserve wants to cut inflation to 2%. Something about all this is not compatible with any of the rest of it.

Now, we should also ask this, what happens when millions of people wake up one day and realize that their job skills have been replaced by AI and robots?

 

I'm sure that's why Trump got the most votes in history.....
Although if any conservatives did go harvesting votes and nursing homes they probably would have had to fight the liberal vote harvesters. They don't like people stepping on their traditional toes

 

sad that the right tries so hard to cheat, karma that they lost anyways

 

Of a losing candidate, true. Too bad Biden got over 7,000,000 more where Hil only beat him by 5,000,000

 

In post #5 you wrote “Conservatism in general is very much in favor of cutting spending to make substantive gains in balancing the budget.”

But you can’t name a single GOP president ever cut spending. You can’t name a single; year when GOP had controlled of WH and congress and cut spending.

As we all know conservative cut spending is only when Democrat is in WH.

 

The present debt ceiling of $US31.4T works out to roughly $US94,000 for every person in the United States of America.

Curiously, our politicians -- whom we voted into office -- have shown no interest in taking the step needed to first eliminate the on-going annual deficits and, eventually, begin reducing the national debt. That step? Increase our taxes to cover the deficit. It is we, by the way, the same people who put our legislators into office, who must convince them to take this step and raise our taxes.

For both ourselves and our legislators, this comes under the rubric of 'taking responsibility'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

those brains will not be in the nursing homes for very long. the great majority of nursing home patients are billed to medicaid.

 

I have an idea! As you say, the national debt works out to ~$94,000 for each person in the U. S.

Now, why don't we adopt a temporary solution in which each of us pays just 10% of that $94K over the next five years -- and ONLY those who do are allowed to vote in any elections for the next five years! It works out to $1,880 per year for each of us, and while it would only decimate the national debt instead of eliminating it, it would reduce it considerably. A measure like this would temporarily remove many from voting who get tons of government money spent on them, at the same time that they contribute very little or nothing in income taxes!

Serious question: why should we allow those who do nothing but TAKE from the government make any decisions about what government programs are created, and how much tax money is spent funding them?

 

Hi, conservativeliberal.

Thank you for taking time to post a response. It appears to complicate things more than somewhat.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

You do realize that Democrats literally ALWAYS call any tac cut a tax cut for the rich....do you not? This is their pat answer.

When Bush literally gave an equal across the board tax cut to every single income level, they called it a tax cut for the rich.

How do they rationalize this to be the case? Well, if people in the top 10% pay 70% of all federal income taxes, then any across the board tax cut is going to decrease their dollar amount by more because they pay more. Such a cut may give the 90th percentile a $500 decrease in their federal income taxes, while my 50th perrcentile may only be paying $250 to begin with. Of course they are not going to enjoy the same dollar figure in savings.

It never occurred to me when im suing my 20% off at Bed Bath & Beyond for my $10 item, that this is somehow a coupon for the rich since the guy in front of me is saving 20% off of his $200 item. He is saving $40 and IM only saving $2. I find it hard to rationalize how you folks let envy play such a large part in your political beliefs.

 

So you are going to take one little snippet out of post number 5 in order to pretend like I did not address this exact issue, when the totality of that post explained if fully.

Lets look again at post number 5....




"While neither side ever substantively addresses the debt, the motives that you ascribe are not correct.

Conservatism in general is very much in favor of cutting spending to make substantive gains in balancing the budget. This applies to the politicans and especially the voters.
While neither side ever substantively addresses the debt, the motives that you ascribe are not correct.

Conservatism in general is very much in favor of cutting spending to make substantive gains in balancing the budget. This applies to the politicans and especially the voters. The problem is that it is too easy to demagogue anyone suggesting meaningful cuts, and thus a President running on making that happen will never win.

From that perspective, it is not accurate to say that Conservatives dont care. It is only accurate to say that neither side is ever going to substantively tackle this issue.

From that perspective, it is not accurate to say that Conservatives dont care. It is only accurate to say that neither side is ever going to substantively tackle this issue."


So if we look at those words, I very clearly said that they want to cut spending but it is impossible to win election while doing so, which is precisely why it does not happen. You are trying to say that is because they do not care, and my position is that they care but are unable to make it happen due to how easy it is to demagogue the issue.

It is a mystery as to how you did not catch this the first time around.

 

democrats vs republican

Bush tax cuts vs what Obama wanted and republican fought against

 

So Conservative care about debt and deficit but they don’t do anything about it.

Thank you for making my point.

 

Yes, this illustrates PRECISELY what I said. When one pays far more in taxes, they save far more when there is an across the board cut.

 

They are incapable of doing anything about it because the public is stupid and it is far too easy to successfully demagogue any proposed spending cuts.

That was not your point. You are not being truthful when claiming that I have made your point. If you need to pretend that I supported your position when I clearly have not, you probably do not have much of a point.

 

one gets way more of a tax cut then the other, the rich..... republicans demand the rich get huge tax cuts

 

Let me get this straight

Conservative politicians know that they can’t do any thing about Debt or deficit when they are in power.

Conservative voters don’t want conservative politician to do anything about debt and deficit.

But Conservative politicians pretend they care about debt and deficit knowing very well their voter will not vote for them if they do any thing about debt and deficit.

Did I miss any thing ?

 

When one pays more in taxes, with a 5% across the board tax cut, they save more yes. That doesnt make it a tax cut for the rich, it makes it an acorss the board tax cut.

Similarly, a 20% off coupon at Bed Bath and Beyond saves more money for the person buying a $100 item than it does for someone purchasing a $10 item. This does not make it a coupon for the rich. It makes it a 20% off coupon.