LogFAQs > #904114797

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicU.S. debt lowest in six decades under Trump administration
kayoticdreamz
06/28/18 8:14:56 AM
#47:


tennisdude818 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
The US government will go bankrupt, probably in our lifetimes. That ship sailed long before Trump was elected, but I still oppose Trump's spending.

And LOL at the partisan libs on CE. Yeah, Bernie or Hillary would have gotten our fiscal house in order. What a joke.

They both proposed new taxes and a progressive tax scale.

Bill Clinton had a surplus and SNAP has never been expanded since.


The below is a good read if you're interested in seeing why Clinton didn't actually have a surplus.

https://www.mises.org/library/surplus-hoax

The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the United States isn't obligated to pay Social Security as a debt thus is able to cut payouts like the Trump administration proposes. It only becomes an actual debt when we borrow to pay out.

That article lumps Bonds and Social Security together as trust funds.

I can see how Social Security spending has increased because of baby boomers.

Still a progressive tax plan and new taxes are way more fiscally responsible than the Trump tax cuts. Seems like he's waiting until after the midterms before cutting spending on things people actually like.


Redirecting SS contributions towards other spending is obviously a misuse of that money, and SS would never have passed in the first place if it was advertised like that. The increase in spending towards boomers was predictable, but their contributions were blown so now the next generations have to pay into a Ponzi Scheme. Thats not all Bill Clintons fault, but its hard to take his surplus seriously.

No amount of progressive taxes would cover current spending and unfunded liabilities. I think we can write off Bernie pretty easily because he wanted enormous increases in public spending. Hillary is an establishment Democrat that likely would have acted like Obama, but with even worse foreign policy.


this

at this point the only way america gets out of debt is by having some seriously large cuts in spending, and not the usual "if we cut spending here, we need to raise taxes here and raise spending here to offset it nonsense" we usually hear.

neither party is exactly great about being financially responsible.

the other problem is the government can't just completely cut spending, it needs a certain amount.

but the biggest problem is the welfare entitlement programs that need to be buried for good. Social Security is a damn scam for starters, that many people working today, won't see any of it yet pay for it. then we have welfare receivers growing in number and the illegals are just making that worse.

america point blank needs to cut it's budget in half, and it needs to start with the entitlement programs because those are the one's are grow exponentially as they are based on the population growth. also less people on welfare and more people working = more taxes(Without raising taxes) = more money to pay off debt.

immigration and debt, are easily two of americas biggest problems today.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1