Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-08-2017 03:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

(11-08-2017 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

You gonna sell the assets to pay the debt?

People think we have a nice little perpetual-motion money tree going on. We'll see.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-08-2017 03:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

You gonna sell the assets to pay the debt?

People think we have a nice little perpetual-motion money tree going on. We'll see.

Not anytime soon. Just pointing out that we're light years away from running out of other peoples money. And that's not even counting the money that will likely always be able to borrowed from other countries.

(11-08-2017 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

You gonna sell the assets to pay the debt?

People think we have a nice little perpetual-motion money tree going on. We'll see.

Not anytime soon. Just pointing out that we're light years away from running out of other peoples money. And that's not even counting the money that will likely always be able to borrowed from other countries.

What do you do if interest rates spike up to Jimmy Carter levels and you don't have the revenue to pay the interest payments on your ever-increasing debt?

100% tax rates? Print, print, print?

Some folks think America is financially invulnerable and has infinite ability to increase spending and borrow.

Its going to be a hard day when the music stops.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-08-2017 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 02:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The end is near. Liberal cookoo birds are concerned about deficits and adding trillions to the debt all of a sudden.

You're not reading this correctly and missing the point. Republicans (and especially the tea party) pretended to care about them. And now they don't seem to care. That makes them hypocrites, right?

And FWIW - I've always been concerned about the debt and deficit. However, not when the deficit is fairly small as it has been and the cost to borrow is basically zero coupled with the economy needing stimulus. I'm well aware that it's not sustainable forever, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's the same thing with the debt limit nonsense. It's rarely been an issue when a Republican is president...they just keep raising it...but when Obama was in, it was suddenly anathema.

Nope. Care a lot about the debt and deficit. And the way to handle it is:

1. Cut spending
2. Increase Revenue by reducing taxes
3. Make those who are not pay their fair share

This tax bill tackles #2 & #3. We can do those things PRIOR to #1. I'd love to have #1. But I'm not willing to sit by and watch #2 & #3 get neglected while #1 gets debated to death year after year after year.

(11-08-2017 04:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Way too far down the road for fiscal responsibility.

This will all continue until all of our revenue goes to interest payments. Then it will all come to a screeching halt. It won't be a fun time.

We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

You gonna sell the assets to pay the debt?

People think we have a nice little perpetual-motion money tree going on. We'll see.

Not anytime soon. Just pointing out that we're light years away from running out of other peoples money. And that's not even counting the money that will likely always be able to borrowed from other countries.

What do you do if interest rates spike up to Jimmy Carter levels and you don't have the revenue to pay the interest payments on your ever-increasing debt?

100% tax rates? Print, print, print?

Some folks think America is financially invulnerable and has infinite ability to increase spending and borrow.

Its going to be a hard day when the music stops.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

But the problem with this notion, is that we don't live in a vacuum. We're pretty much bulletproof on the world stage. We're not Greece.

(11-08-2017 04:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 04:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We're light years from that dude. This nation is flush with cash.

If you're one of those who likes to assign the debt to each person, that comes out to $62,754. However, if you do that, you also then need to assign the assets to each person. And that amounts to $413,778.

You gonna sell the assets to pay the debt?

People think we have a nice little perpetual-motion money tree going on. We'll see.

Not anytime soon. Just pointing out that we're light years away from running out of other peoples money. And that's not even counting the money that will likely always be able to borrowed from other countries.

What do you do if interest rates spike up to Jimmy Carter levels and you don't have the revenue to pay the interest payments on your ever-increasing debt?

100% tax rates? Print, print, print?

Some folks think America is financially invulnerable and has infinite ability to increase spending and borrow.

Its going to be a hard day when the music stops.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

But the problem with this notion, is that we don't live in a vacuum. We're pretty much bulletproof on the world stage. We're not Greece.

So your answer is "can't happen here".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-08-2017 04:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 02:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The end is near. Liberal cookoo birds are concerned about deficits and adding trillions to the debt all of a sudden.

You're not reading this correctly and missing the point. Republicans (and especially the tea party) pretended to care about them. And now they don't seem to care. That makes them hypocrites, right?

And FWIW - I've always been concerned about the debt and deficit. However, not when the deficit is fairly small as it has been and the cost to borrow is basically zero coupled with the economy needing stimulus. I'm well aware that it's not sustainable forever, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's the same thing with the debt limit nonsense. It's rarely been an issue when a Republican is president...they just keep raising it...but when Obama was in, it was suddenly anathema.

Nope. Care a lot about the debt and deficit. And the way to handle it is:

1. Cut spending
2. Increase Revenue by reducing taxes
3. Make those who are not pay their fair share

This tax bill tackles #2 & #3. We can do those things PRIOR to #1. I'd love to have #1. But I'm not willing to sit by and watch #2 & #3 get neglected while #1 gets debated to death year after year after year.

The problem, AGAIN, is that #2 has never really been proven to happen, at especially not at a rate great enough to account for a drop in revenue of anywhere near 1.7 trillion dollars.

And for #3, you can't get blood out of a turnip.

And while I love tax cuts too, they cannot be done with just a promise of spending cuts, which we both know never comes to fruition. So it would not be at all fiscally responsible to pass this thing without them.

Additionally, that great reduction you have calculated for yourself with this plan. Pretty sure I heard that basically goes away in a short period of time. That is unless of course you live in trump's neighborhood.

(11-08-2017 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 02:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The end is near. Liberal cookoo birds are concerned about deficits and adding trillions to the debt all of a sudden.

You're not reading this correctly and missing the point. Republicans (and especially the tea party) pretended to care about them. And now they don't seem to care. That makes them hypocrites, right?

And FWIW - I've always been concerned about the debt and deficit. However, not when the deficit is fairly small as it has been and the cost to borrow is basically zero coupled with the economy needing stimulus. I'm well aware that it's not sustainable forever, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's the same thing with the debt limit nonsense. It's rarely been an issue when a Republican is president...they just keep raising it...but when Obama was in, it was suddenly anathema.

You know very well that up-front liberals (Democrats) and closet liberals (RINOs) love tax revenue (the more the better) and spending it faster than they can get it.

True conservatives want less government and less government spending.

To spin it any other way is just that - spin.

(11-08-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  CBO never considers growth in their projections. That said, CBO also never considers recessions. They are also horrible at their jobs. They completely blew the prediction on Obamacare. Seeing as they always show huge overruns for Repubican bills using silly assumptions (like people who choose not to buy insurance are "losing" insurance) and underestimate the cost of Democrat bills---I dont think they are the unbiased non-partisan body they are represented as being.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...791a5b46a7

Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

This holds equal weight as proof. Sorry.

So, you don’t know much about history either?
Sorry.

And it is funny to see leftists now moan about even clearly flawed methodology like the now useless CBO, suggesting “all things remaining equal” (which, of course they NEVER do), May produce as much as a trillion dollars in new debt...

Over TEN years. Ten. One trillion.

zerO started with around 9 trillion on the books from the prior 230+ years of American history, and left us with double or more than double that, nearly 20 trillion in just 8 years. That’s right, adding on average of more than trillion each and every year. For eight freaking years, now one trillion over ten is an issue?!?

Y’all just nekkit hypocrites and embarrass yourselves making, or attempting to make ANY kind of argument along these lines to try and keep the people from keeping more of their hard earned money in their families.

Where were you from ‘09-‘16 complaining? Oh yea, nowhere. Trillion* dollar deficits added each year didn’t matte one whit, even when the American people got next to nothing for them.

You remember shovel ready jobs? Infrastructure rebuilding? Healing the planet and ceasing the rising oceans?

Yea, me too. I remember cause NONE of that folly ever happened and we STILL got to pay for it. Now you all care about fiscal responsibility and budgets being passed. Not a peep for nearly a decade.

I’m actually embarrassed for you.

(11-09-2017 06:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  CBO never considers growth in their projections. That said, CBO also never considers recessions. They are also horrible at their jobs. They completely blew the prediction on Obamacare. Seeing as they always show huge overruns for Repubican bills using silly assumptions (like people who choose not to buy insurance are "losing" insurance) and underestimate the cost of Democrat bills---I dont think they are the unbiased non-partisan body they are represented as being.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...791a5b46a7

Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

This holds equal weight as proof. Sorry.

So, you don’t know much about history either?
Sorry.

And it is funny to see leftists now moan about even clearly flawed methodology like the now useless CBO, suggesting “all things remaining equal” (which, of course they NEVER do), May produce as much as a trillion dollars in new debt...

Over TEN years. Ten. One trillion.

zerO started with around 9 trillion on the books from the prior 230+ years of American history, and left us with double or more than double that, nearly 20 trillion in just 8 years. That’s right, adding on average of more than trillion each and every year. For eight freaking years, now one trillion over ten is an issue?!?

Y’all just nekkit hypocrites and embarrass yourselves making, or attempting to make ANY kind of argument along these lines to try and keep the people from keeping more of their hard earned money in their families.

Where were you from ‘09-‘16 complaining? Oh yea, nowhere. Trillion* dollar deficits added each year didn’t matte one whit, even when the American people got next to nothing for them.

You remember shovel ready jobs? Infrastructure rebuilding? Healing the planet and ceasing the rising oceans?

Yea, me too. I remember cause NONE of that folly ever happened and we STILL got to pay for it. Now you all care about fiscal responsibility and budgets being passed. Not a peep for nearly a decade.

I’m actually embarrassed for you.

They've already blamed W this thread. Next is that Obama had a Congress against him.

A G A I N. YOU are the ones who were concerned about debt. Now, when your guy is looking to increase it by an estimated 1.7T, you don't seem to care.

Stop asking where I was from 09-16. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I've already explained this above.

And again, there is NO concrete proof that tax cuts spur economic growth. If there was, you would have presented it by now. Yes, there have been tax cuts and growth that occurred at the same time, but there is nothing to prove that they are directly related to each other.

So as I explained above, if the spending is not cut at the same time that the taxes are cut, the debt will not magically take care of itself. You're a damned sucker if you think that any elected official will actually follow through with spending cuts. If they do, it will be about the first time in modern history.

(11-09-2017 07:20 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

This holds equal weight as proof. Sorry.

So, you don’t know much about history either?
Sorry.

And it is funny to see leftists now moan about even clearly flawed methodology like the now useless CBO, suggesting “all things remaining equal” (which, of course they NEVER do), May produce as much as a trillion dollars in new debt...

Over TEN years. Ten. One trillion.

zerO started with around 9 trillion on the books from the prior 230+ years of American history, and left us with double or more than double that, nearly 20 trillion in just 8 years. That’s right, adding on average of more than trillion each and every year. For eight freaking years, now one trillion over ten is an issue?!?

Y’all just nekkit hypocrites and embarrass yourselves making, or attempting to make ANY kind of argument along these lines to try and keep the people from keeping more of their hard earned money in their families.

Where were you from ‘09-‘16 complaining? Oh yea, nowhere. Trillion* dollar deficits added each year didn’t matte one whit, even when the American people got next to nothing for them.

You remember shovel ready jobs? Infrastructure rebuilding? Healing the planet and ceasing the rising oceans?

Yea, me too. I remember cause NONE of that folly ever happened and we STILL got to pay for it. Now you all care about fiscal responsibility and budgets being passed. Not a peep for nearly a decade.

I’m actually embarrassed for you.

They've already blamed W this thread. Next is that Obama had a Congress against him.

Obama having a congress against him is the only reason we dont have 50trillion in debt. Cause the flaming nutsack would have tried to get us there.

This is not partisan. Washington is going to be unable to stop no matter which party is in charge. It will stop, when it stops.

People should just not fool themselves into thinking that its sustainable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

This issue is Nothing but partisan hypocrisy. The people complaining when Obama ran up trillions in debt are not doing so now. The people complaining now were not doing so then. Fiscal conservatism starts with a balanced budget. That is the only way to enforce any spending discipline. Both parties are total idiots on this issue. Get rid of all of them.

Tax cuts do promote growth if they are properly focused. The “Bush tax cuts” were focused on “trickle down” rather than growth, and were not effective. The Reagan/Bradley/Gephardt tax cuts (with tweaks by GHWB and Clinton) were focused on growth, and ushered in long-term growth in both the economy and federal tax revenues. They were then imitated by the rest of the developed world, who took them further than we did. The result is that investment and jobs moved offshore. If we want them to come back, then we need to make the US a better place to do business.

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  CBO never considers growth in their projections. That said, CBO also never considers recessions. They are also horrible at their jobs. They completely blew the prediction on Obamacare. Seeing as they always show huge overruns for Repubican bills using silly assumptions (like people who choose not to buy insurance are "losing" insurance) and underestimate the cost of Democrat bills---I dont think they are the unbiased non-partisan body they are represented as being.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...791a5b46a7

Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

Well, there is that whole 80's thing under Reagan where tax "cuts" resulted in rising tax revenue. CBO said that would result in lost revenue as well I believe---but carry on with your narrative. We dont have a revenue problem in the is country. We have a spending problem.

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  CBO never considers growth in their projections. That said, CBO also never considers recessions. They are also horrible at their jobs. They completely blew the prediction on Obamacare. Seeing as they always show huge overruns for Repubican bills using silly assumptions (like people who choose not to buy insurance are "losing" insurance) and underestimate the cost of Democrat bills---I dont think they are the unbiased non-partisan body they are represented as being.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...791a5b46a7

Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

1.7 Trillion over what span of time? 10 years? They make it sound like it's one year.
Not my problem they can't restrain themselves from spending more than they make (steal).

(11-09-2017 07:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  CBO never considers growth in their projections. That said, CBO also never considers recessions. They are also horrible at their jobs. They completely blew the prediction on Obamacare. Seeing as they always show huge overruns for Repubican bills using silly assumptions (like people who choose not to buy insurance are "losing" insurance) and underestimate the cost of Democrat bills---I dont think they are the unbiased non-partisan body they are represented as being.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...791a5b46a7

Big. Hairy. Deal. If they're off by .7 trillion, this would still add a trillion dollars to the debt.

There is just no evidence anywhere that a tax cut will magically spur growth to offset even as "little" as 1 trillion!

Well, there is that whole 80's thing under Reagan where tax "cuts" resulted in rising tax revenue. CBO said that would result in lost revenue as well I believe---but carry on with your narrative. We dont have a revenue problem in the is country. We have a spending problem.

We spent a crapload on rebuilding the military under Reagan. Was it the tax cuts or the injection of military spending that caused the growth, or a combination. Makes it hard to pin down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-09-2017 03:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This issue is Nothing but partisan hypocrisy. The people complaining when Obama ran up trillions in debt are not doing so now. The people complaining now were not doing so then. Fiscal conservatism starts with a balanced budget. That is the only way to enforce any spending discipline. Both parties are total idiots on this issue. Get rid of all of them.

Tax cuts do promote growth if they are properly focused. The “Bush tax cuts” were focused on “trickle down” rather than growth, and were not effective. The Reagan/Bradley/Gephardt tax cuts (with tweaks by GHWB and Clinton) were focused on growth, and ushered in long-term growth in both the economy and federal tax revenues. They were then imitated by the rest of the developed world, who took them further than we did. The result is that investment and jobs moved offshore. If we want them to come back, then we need to make the US a better place to do business.

Not only a balanced budget, but cuts ACROSS the board and paying down the debt.