Hopes from an Obstructionist

[fskimospy]

We should be cutting spending, not raising taxes. People keeping more of what they earn is an objective good, rich or poor.

What spending should we cut specifically and by how much?

Here's a good tool you can use but remember even this is too optimistic as Republicans just blew a giant hole in the budget with their latest tax cut.

https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/pages/overview

 

[Engineer]

Well, that's where the overwhelming bulk of the spending is.

If you're saying that we need to cut SS/Medicare, I'll give the same response that I've given the others - Fuck You. If not, carry on.

 

[Atreus21]

What spending should we cut specifically and by how much?

Here's a good tool you can use but remember even this is too optimistic as Republicans just blew a giant hole in the budget with their latest tax cut.

https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/pages/overview

As I alluded to in my response to Victorian, it will almost certainly have to come from entitlements and military spending, because those are the big cahunas.

Anyway, I spent some time on the challenge you linked, but I admit I don't really understand what I'm cutting. Furthermore, when cutting everything and increasing as much taxes as I could I still had a deficit of 1.38 trillion over 10 years. Seems to me there are items being withheld. Is this discretionary spending only?

 

[Atreus21]

If you're saying that we need to cut SS/Medicare, I'll give the same response that I've given the others - Fuck You. If not, carry on.

haha. I know, you already told me sir.

 

[fskimospy]

As I alluded to in my response to Victorian, it will almost certainly have to come from entitlements and military spending, because those are the big cahunas.

Well sure, but cut what about the military and Social Security/Medicare/whatever? It's easy to say we should cut them, it's hard to actually get into what should be cut. This is a pretty consistent theme of US politics where people think spending should be cut in the abstract and oppose it in the specific. Are we no longer covering dialysis so now people die of kidney failure? Are we forcing people from rural areas to go to central hospitals for treatment because it's cheaper? Are we cutting social security payments to people living below the poverty line?

These questions are important because as compared to other developed countries US taxes are quite low. If we're unwilling to raise them to a similar level we have a lot of hard choices to make and honestly I don't think people would actually want to make them if they knew the consequences.

Anyway, I spent some time on the challenge you linked, but I admit I don't really understand what I'm cutting. Furthermore, when cutting everything and increasing as much taxes as I could I still had a deficit of 1.38 trillion over 10 years. Seems to me there are items being withheld. Is this discretionary spending only?

It doesn't cover everything, no, but I like it because it gives real, concrete examples of what we are giving up when we try to balance the budget.

 

[dank69]

We should be cutting spending, not raising taxes. People keeping more of what they earn is an objective good, rich or poor.

Why should we cut spending? As a percent of GDP our spending isn't actually all that much higher than it has been since the world wars. Cutting just military spending might be enough to get us back around 20%...

 

[bradly1101]

If reform = cut, see my response above. I'm sick and fucking tired of the generation before mine wanting to keep all of theirs and cutting mine and the generation below mine at the same time cutting taxes for the wealthy. If McCain can get his full SS from age 65 and continues to get it, we can get ours in full.

I've never voted straight line ticket for anything but I agree with a co-worker, if any attempt is made to cut SS/Medicare, I'll vote straight line Democrat for the rest of my life, regardless if the candidate is satan, the Pope, Charlie Brown.

Once you get a taste of rich, there's nothing like it. Must have more. Helicopter fuel delivery on your yacht is a must. I get the passion, and people can't find jobs. I know turning this is impossible, and imagine if we loosened the reigns of efficiency. The shareholders would freak and everyone else would benefit.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Well sure, but cut what about the military and Social Security/Medicare/whatever? It's easy to say we should cut them, it's hard to actually get into what should be cut. This is a pretty consistent theme of US politics where people think spending should be cut in the abstract and oppose it in the specific. Are we no longer covering dialysis so now people die of kidney failure? Are we forcing people from rural areas to go to central hospitals for treatment because it's cheaper? Are we cutting social security payments to people living below the poverty line?

These questions are important because as compared to other developed countries US taxes are quite low. If we're unwilling to raise them to a similar level we have a lot of hard choices to make and honestly I don't think people would actually want to make them if they knew the consequences.



It doesn't cover everything, no, but I like it because it gives real, concrete examples of what we are giving up when we try to balance the budget.

That seems like something for the heads of those respective programs to figure out. Give them a budget and let them allocate and manage within that.

 

[fskimospy]

That seems like something for the heads of those respective programs to figure out. Give them a budget and let them allocate and manage within that.

That's not how US government appropriations work. While the department heads have some discretionary funds to work with they are designed to implement the will of Congress and the President, not to chart their own way. It's up to Congress and the President to tell them what their priorities are.

 

[woolfe9998]

As I alluded to in my response to Victorian, it will almost certainly have to come from entitlements and military spending, because those are the big cahunas.

I paid into the system my entire life, and you expect me to take reduced benefits in order to fund a top heavy tax cut which disproportionately benefits the people who need it the least? No thanks.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I paid into the system my entire life, and you expect me to take reduced benefits in order to fund a top heavy tax cut which disproportionately benefits the people who need it the least? No thanks.

Two different things. I'm against the tax cuts because it's fiscally irresponsible given the current debt/levels of government spending but the tax cuts aren't dependent on reforming entitlements or vice versa.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Lol. So now you’re dismissing your own links when they say things you don’t like.

More self ownage.

More lies from fskimospy.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

As I alluded to in my response to Victorian, it will almost certainly have to come from entitlements and military spending, because those are the big cahunas.

Anyway, I spent some time on the challenge you linked, but I admit I don't really understand what I'm cutting. Furthermore, when cutting everything and increasing as much taxes as I could I still had a deficit of 1.38 trillion over 10 years. Seems to me there are items being withheld. Is this discretionary spending only?

It's like my recent post about The United Nations where I claimed the United States spends about 10 Billion dollars per year on the United Nations. A progressive poster replied with the typical "fact check" that put the number at about 3.3 Billion a year to the U.N., but they didn't add everything we pay.
You will never, never, never, get honest numbers from the left side of the discussion about what we pay and how much we pay and what can be cut. Good luck on the attempt though.

 

[fskimospy]

More lies from fskimospy.

Nope, I pointed out how your own link said it wasn't a meaningful problem. You then proceeded to denigrate the source for your own link's reporting. It's not my fault you're so stupid you don't read your own sources.

Remember, your failings are your responsibility, not ours. Isn't it time you took some personal responsibility for once?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Nope, I pointed out how your own link said it wasn't a meaningful problem. You then proceeded to denigrate the source for your own link's reporting. It's not my fault you're so stupid you don't read your own sources.

Remember, your failings are your responsibility, not ours. Isn't it time you took some personal responsibility for once?

No, my link said it existed beyond any doubt, an opinion piece also linked in the article by a Democratic source said it's no big deal. Nothing new here and nothing new with you lying, it's what you do and you do it well.

Read the link again:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dead-people-voting-in-colorado/article/2602775

 

[fskimospy]

No, my link said it existed beyond any doubt, an opinion piece also linked in the article by a Democratic source said it's no big deal. Nothing new here and nothing new with you lying, it's what you do and you do it well.

So you took the part of your link that you liked and discarded the part of your link that you didn't like, just as I said.

You realize that other people can see what you write, right? You're a terribly dishonest person.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So you took the part of your link that you liked and discarded the part of your link that you didn't like, just as I said.

You realize that other people can see what you write, right? You're a terribly dishonest person.

They are welcome to read it themselves and I hope they do. You are an asshole.

 

[fskimospy]

They are welcome to read it themselves and I hope they do. You are an asshole.

I would say you should grow up but I'm going to assume if it hasn't happened by now it's not going to happen.

 

[Atreus21]

I paid into the system my entire life, and you expect me to take reduced benefits in order to fund a top heavy tax cut which disproportionately benefits the people who need it the least? No thanks.

I think even without the tax cut, these programs need reform. I don't see how it's avoidable. Apart from the last two years, life expectancy is trending up. Lower birthrates mean an aging population, which means more retirees and fewer taxpayers. Marriage rates are falling. Compounding this, the general cost of medical care is ever rising.

Speaking for myself at my meager age of 36, I don't expect to see any of the money that I've compulsorily invested in these programs.

 

[Engineer]

I don't expect to see any of the money that I've compulsorily invested in these programs.

I fully expect to see all of mine.

 

[dank69]

I think even without the tax cut, these programs need reform. I don't see how it's avoidable. Apart from the last two years, life expectancy is trending up. Lower birthrates mean an aging population, which means more retirees and fewer taxpayers. Marriage rates are falling. Compounding this, the general cost of medical care is ever rising.

Speaking for myself at my meager age of 36, I don't expect to see any of the money that I've compulsorily invested in these programs.

I already asked you why we need to cut spending since it isn't all that high compared to GDP...

 

[woolfe9998]

Two different things. I'm against the tax cuts because it's fiscally irresponsible given the current debt/levels of government spending but the tax cuts aren't dependent on reforming entitlements or vice versa.

The fiscal problems created by the tax cuts are going to be used as an excuse for cuts. I would think that is obvious enough to not require further explanation.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think even without the tax cut, these programs need reform. I don't see how it's avoidable. Apart from the last two years, life expectancy is trending up. Lower birthrates mean an aging population, which means more retirees and fewer taxpayers. Marriage rates are falling. Compounding this, the general cost of medical care is ever rising.

Speaking for myself at my meager age of 36, I don't expect to see any of the money that I've compulsorily invested in these programs.

The programs can be fixed. We just need to money to do it. Giving tax cuts to billionaires makes that more difficult.

 

[DarthKyrie]

First cut revenue and then use budget restrictions as justification for a reduction in entitlements while the rich people are allowed to retain ever more wealth. Caring Democrats under FDR created the New Deal to prevent ordinary Americans from ever being completely exposed to financial ruin yet Republicans yearn to return us to those days in every way.

FDR also had the blessing of most of the rich back then because the rich were given a choice with the election of FDR either be willing to give up most of your money and still remain rich or the people were going to start coming for them and their families. FDR warned them of what came after if the election of him didn't work, the communist and socialist parties made up the bulk of the support for the Dems at that point in time. I'm pretty sure the thought of what happened in Russia after the civil war between the Red and White armies was fresh on the minds of the rich seeing as it happened less than 20 years earlier.

I think the rich of today need to be taught a history lesson about what happens to the rich when they become too greedy.

Edit: I should mention that parts of my own family learned the hard way, they lost their heads during the French Revolution.

 

[Younigue]

Nope, I pointed out how your own link said it wasn't a meaningful problem. You then proceeded to denigrate the source for your own link's reporting. It's not my fault you're so stupid you don't read your own sources.

Remember, your failings are your responsibility, not ours. Isn't it time you took some personal responsibility for once?

He's too stupid to do so?