Deficit up 17%

Both sides have been kicking this can down the road for decades. They (both) know they won't be here when the bill comes due. Pointing fingers at any one party is playing right into both of their hands. Blame game. And no matter who wins, we lose.

Until, and unless, we demand that our government learns to spend less than they make (from us), it will never change.

But let's keep arguing about "who raised the deficit more". That should fix things, right?

100%
 

Read a book called Innumeracy. John Alan Paulos. Came out in the 80s. From that book, here's another way to look at this: 1 million seconds take about 11 days to pass. 1 billion seconds takes about 33 years. I can remember where I was 33 years ago and even 11 days ago. 1 trillion seconds is 33,000 years. Were we even standing upright then?
 
I’d gladly accept a reasonable tax increase if it was coupled with a 20% across the board cut in actual spending (not a 20% cut in spending growth) and a zero based budgeting process. they would also have to pass an amendment to the effect of all the new revenue and savings had to go toward paying off the debt. Absolutely no increases in spending or new programs until all debt is retired.

Anyone else game?
With a Constitutional amendment only.
 
Just like the Tax Cuts: welfare for the wealthy; rewarding wealth over work.
Tax cuts: welfare for the wealthy. Anyone else see the cognitive dissonance, here? Tax cuts: welfare. Not tax deferred. Not tax exempt. Tax CUTS.

You will have to do better than this, TN Ribs.
 
Read a book called Innumeracy. John Alan Paulos. Came out in the 80s. From that book, here's another way to look at this: 1 million seconds take about 11 days to pass. 1 billion seconds takes about 33 years. I can remember where I was 33 years ago and even 11 days ago. 1 trillion seconds is 33,000 years. Were we even standing upright then?
I was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
I’d gladly accept a reasonable tax increase if it was coupled with a 20% across the board cut in actual spending (not a 20% cut in spending growth) and a zero based budgeting process. they would also have to pass an amendment to the effect of all the new revenue and savings had to go toward paying off the debt. Absolutely no increases in spending or new programs until all debt is retired.

Anyone else game?

Ive got better odds at winning the Kentucky Derby riding a unicorn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and 0nelilreb
Both sides have been kicking this can down the road for decades. They (both) know they won't be here when the bill comes due. Pointing fingers at any one party is playing right into both of their hands. Blame game. And no matter who wins, we lose.

Until, and unless, we demand that our government learns to spend less than they make (from us), it will never change.

But let's keep arguing about "who raised the deficit more". That should fix things, right?
I feel like a few of us are at the zoo watching the primates grunt, bark and fling poo at each other.
There are a few who care nothing about actual discussion on this topic. Sadly for me, it's obe of only a handful of political topics i have any interest in.
 
Really? You have legal means to reduce you tax liability. Can you reduce your liability on your portion of the debt?

I thought you were referring to the impact on me based on which route the government took.
 
I thought you were referring to the impact on me based on which route the government took.
I am referring to the impact on you; specifically the impact on your finances. We could also discuss the broader impact on you if/when America defaults on her obligations.
 
Republicans never met a borrowing bill they didnt lust after. Which is worse; tax and spend or borrow and spend?
Borrow and spend is worse. It's weak, petty, and partisan. It's like robbing the grand kids to placate the rich.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top