(04-06-2024 10:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 12:53 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 11:35 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  We as a nation have lived with make-believe budgets for over 60 years. Budgets defined by what we want, regardless of what we can afford. I don’t know exactly when or where the music will stop, but every lesson of history and human experience teaches that America will — sooner or later, one way or another — have to deal with this. Selfishly, I just hope I’m not around when that happens.

I’m different. I want to get to watch everyone else be miserable. I like seeing the looks people have when they realize they are screwed and there is nothing they can about it.

I know everyone will try to put the blame on every generation before them, and there will be lots of “theories” about how we got like this, and that is part of the fun. Even the final people around who literally pushed us all over the edge will be unable to admit any fault.

The people with the least to lose will all likely enjoy hearing peoples sob stories and all the bltching and moaning. I know I will.

Tell me you are a gigantic piece of sh*t without telling me you are a gigantic piece of sh*t. Hopefully in that scenario the hordes come and kill you and your family first for being such obvious pieces of sh*t.

this is why capitalism in is purest form is beyond BS .... @rememberMuhMedicineMan

and they will ... #cannibalism

(04-06-2024 11:36 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Limit itemized deductions to 3 times the standard deduction (currently $14,600 for a single filer or $29,200 for a married couple fining jointly). This adds hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue.

Get rid of the corporate income tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax. As inflation happens, raise the tax rate by the inflation rate For example if the initial tax rate is 4%, and there is 3% inflation, the new tax rate becomes 4.12%.

Cut all discretionary spending by 5% annually until a surplus is achieved.

do you REALIZE WHAT THE BOLD TEXT ACTUALLY MEANS IN 1 OR 0? ---->>>

caveat: one acceptanble is not to the other

(04-05-2024 01:09 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Great time to cut revenues

Better yet tax companies even more so they will either off shore or use robotics to pare back workers

I fully understand you lack the ability to comprehend that no matter how much you give the clowns they will overspend.

Its called fiscal restraint something not practiced in DC

(04-06-2024 11:35 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:07 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 08:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 06:53 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 01:09 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Great time to cut revenues

Your side would rather cut into medicare.

My side would rather bump taxes & save Medicare & Social Security.

Until “your side” is willing to *Cut* *Spending*, Medicare & Social Security — and all the other government-funded pensions, goodies and handouts, too — will be in danger.

Just in the ~35 years or so since I started to pay attention, there has never been one instance where Democrats were willing to address that at the national level. Their typical response has been to attack anyone who tried to bring it up.

The population shift & aging boomer population was always going to strain SS & Medicare. Al Gore spoke in terms of creating a “lock box” for budget surplus’ accrued while boomers were working & in their prime & George Bush immediately cut taxes & those surplus’ vanished.

Republicans don’t give a squirt of piss about deficits & debt.

None of the politicians do regardless of party you moron.

(04-06-2024 02:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 11:35 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:07 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 08:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 06:53 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Your side would rather cut into medicare.

My side would rather bump taxes & save Medicare & Social Security.

Until “your side” is willing to *Cut* *Spending*, Medicare & Social Security — and all the other government-funded pensions, goodies and handouts, too — will be in danger.

Just in the ~35 years or so since I started to pay attention, there has never been one instance where Democrats were willing to address that at the national level. Their typical response has been to attack anyone who tried to bring it up.

The population shift & aging boomer population was always going to strain SS & Medicare. Al Gore spoke in terms of creating a “lock box” for budget surplus’ accrued while boomers were working & in their prime & George Bush immediately cut taxes & those surplus’ vanished.

Republicans don’t give a squirt of piss about deficits & debt.

None of the politicians do regardless of party you moron.

therefore, if only = 1; if Martha's yield is a yeast infection w/o hooker on standby...

if true, apolitical is all that matters until you get the cannibal recipe...

they beg to be spoiled in a differering version of sweat equity on their back...


'cause it's da ______, that's a fact

'cause it's da ______, and they're suckin' muh sac

'cause it's da ______, what a game

'cause it's da ______, ain' got no shame

'cause it's da ______!

 

John Stossel addresses the fallacy of the "fair share" argument.

The rich already pay more than their fair share. "In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from 33.2% in 2001." Source
Soaking them more will likely be counter productive. They could hide or lessen their income or physically move to a tax haven like the very rich do in Europe to Monaco.

Concerning the national debt, there is an aspect seldom discussed with profound impact. Servicing the mammoth debt requires interest payments. As interest grows like summer kudzu, its proportional share of the national budget also increases. It means there is less money available for federal goods and service like defense and, in turn, creates a vicious cycle of more borrowing and more interest.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/2023-interest...59-billion

(04-06-2024 08:54 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 12:53 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 11:35 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  We as a nation have lived with make-believe budgets for over 60 years. Budgets defined by what we want, regardless of what we can afford. I don’t know exactly when or where the music will stop, but every lesson of history and human experience teaches that America will — sooner or later, one way or another — have to deal with this. Selfishly, I just hope I’m not around when that happens.

I’m different. I want to get to watch everyone else be miserable. I like seeing the looks people have when they realize they are screwed and there is nothing they can about it.

I know everyone will try to put the blame on every generation before them, and there will be lots of “theories” about how we got like this, and that is part of the fun. Even the final people around who literally pushed us all over the edge will be unable to admit any fault.

The people with the least to lose will all likely enjoy hearing peoples sob stories and all the bltching and moaning. I know I will.

this is where we differ (yeah, even as A-theist and @theSadist)...

it's not proper in any category of sig line 3 to wake up and wish harm upon any ... however, (there's always one, Ja?!), it's why sig lines 4, 5, and 6 that became the acceptable consequence of our species over time as we know such...

from redesigning $$$ to controlling gen pop at the largest scale, this planet is long overdue to a mass correction....

It’s not wishing harm on anyone, because it’s inevitable. I happen to just be able to make the best of things a lot better than others. If life gives you lemons…

No one will be going thru anything we ourselves haven’t done to other people. In fact, a lot of our debt is from going around and doing these sorts of things. Some suffering is life’s way of telling people, “hey, in the future, don’t do that.”

And watching predictable reactions can be fun. Every story has the same roles.

We, collectively, deserve this fate. Sorry to all the good people who went along with this orgy of spending and consumption and indulgence, but we all get thrown out with the bath water. Whenever it makes the news that some rich person has spent themselves into oblivion and is now penniless and working at a grocery store, I’m not the only one who doesn’t care.

(04-06-2024 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 11:36 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Limit itemized deductions to 3 times the standard deduction (currently $14,600 for a single filer or $29,200 for a married couple fining jointly). This adds hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue.

Get rid of the corporate income tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax. As inflation happens, raise the tax rate by the inflation rate For example if the initial tax rate is 4%, and there is 3% inflation, the new tax rate becomes 4.12%.

Cut all discretionary spending by 5% annually until a surplus is achieved.

do you REALIZE WHAT THE BOLD TEXT ACTUALLY MEANS IN 1 OR 0? ---->>>

caveat: one acceptanble is not to the other

Yes, I've studied the IRS income tax statistics. Capping itemized deductions at $43,800/$87,600 would only affect a small portion of taxpayers, but the ones affected are people with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of income per year. They pay tax on a lower percentage of their income than some people who make far less.

And remarkably, there were over 1,000 filers in 2020 with more than $10 million in income who had no itemized deductions. Those people wouldn't even be affected by limiting deductions.

The US cannot balance its budget without both new revenue and cutting spending.

Now do it with the welfare for the illegals?

(04-06-2024 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Okay great, we can start with cutting the quickly approaching 1 trillion a year pentagon budget. Hell since you guys always ask "how do you pay for it" the fact they've never once (and never will) pass an audit seems like a great reason to drastically cut their funding until they can tell us where there money is going.

The Pentagon is not the problem. If we spent zero on defense we would still have a trillion dollar deficit.

Actually it is a problem in a way. Just like everything else in Washington, DC, it is grossly overloaded with inefficient administration and overhead at the top. There is a reason why the top three counties for household income in the USA--and 7 of the top 12--are in the DC metro area, and that reason ain't because they are producing anything of value.

We could probably balance the budget by cutting out the unnecessary and often counterproductive administrative bloat at the top of every federal agency. But if you even suggest that, the the Strzoks and Brennans and Mayorkases of the world and their cronies will set about to destroy you, because you are crapping on their gravy trains. And thanks to things like the patRIOT act, they have the tools to do so.

One reason that I have proposed things like Bismarck health care and a universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund is because those systems basically run themselves with little or no admin overhead. You could probably run both with about 10% overhead, whereas most federal programs are up to 75% overhead. You would provide more benefits to more people, particularly both the truly needy and the folks who want to produce their way off the welfare plantation, for less total cost.

Consistently the only person on the "right" on this board I find agreement with.

Let's just cancel the debt.

(04-06-2024 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Okay great, we can start with cutting the quickly approaching 1 trillion a year pentagon budget. Hell since you guys always ask "how do you pay for it" the fact they've never once (and never will) pass an audit seems like a great reason to drastically cut their funding until they can tell us where there money is going.

The Pentagon is not the problem. If we spent zero on defense we would still have a trillion dollar deficit.

Actually it is a problem in a way. Just like everything else in Washington, DC, it is grossly overloaded with inefficient administration and overhead at the top. There is a reason why the top three counties for household income in the USA--and 7 of the top 12--are in the DC metro area, and that reason ain't because they are producing anything of value.

We could probably balance the budget by cutting out the unnecessary and often counterproductive administrative bloat at the top of every federal agency. But if you even suggest that, the the Strzoks and Brennans and Mayorkases of the world and their cronies will set about to destroy you, because you are crapping on their gravy trains. And thanks to things like the patRIOT act, they have the tools to do so.

One reason that I have proposed things like Bismarck health care and a universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund is because those systems basically run themselves with little or no admin overhead. You could probably run both with about 10% overhead, whereas most federal programs are up to 75% overhead. You would provide more benefits to more people, particularly both the truly needy and the folks who want to produce their way off the welfare plantation, for less total cost.

Agree. If a nanny is what citizens desire, then it should be operated as efficiently as feasible.

It would be catastrophic to balance the federal budget quickly because federal money is woven into the fabric of the nation. However, freezing spending for most departments would eventually better balance the budget.

(04-08-2024 09:32 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's just cancel the debt.

Eventually, the Democrats will nominate someone for president who embraces that idea. I don’t know exactly when, but eventually. Wait and see. Republicans or other people will try to say that it doesn’t work that way. They will be accused of being “anti-poor” or what have you.