On the positive side, if we go bankrupt, as surely as we will if politicians and
their supporters keep asking for more, all the while railing against all they
government isn't doing for them, disguised as 'helping' the poor,
etc., is that I won't have to hear anymore whining and complaining about
what government is supposed to do for them. There is always a silver lining in
Is there room in it for the wall?
Republicans and democrats have had many chances, control of Congress, to balance
the budget and have not done it because they were afraid they would not be
re-elected. Therefore it is the voters that are to blame because the congress
is just fighting for survival. It will take someone like Trump, either party,
to force the issue. People do not want to stop receiving so called free
services. It is hard to convince people that they are actually paying for free
services through their taxes.Note that individuals do not get control of
their money until they are forced by circumstances like bankruptcy, loosing a
house, bad health, etc. etc. etc. I did not change until I joined the Mormon
church and married Joan.
@2bitsSo your family members are completely unbiased?As
far as google goes that is not exactly a consensus. You can’t
say not to believe the hype of the left if you are buying the hype on the right.
To "The Educator " until we can get the debt eliminated, yes that would
be a good thing.SS is already spending more than it brings in,
adding to the debt.Student loans have only added to the skyrocketing
cost of education.The EPA doesn't have a stellar record in
protecting anything in the past 20 years. (remember dump of toxic materials by
the EPA into the Colorado River).Why should the poor have more money
than I do to spend on food? Did you miss the video recently of the
"poor" woman who feeds her dog Lobster? I can't afford that for
myself yet the poor can feed it to their dogs.Since you are so
educated, tell us why we should be spending anything on items not specifically
listed in the Constitution?To "pragmatistferlife" lets look
at the opposite end. You have nearly 50% of the US that pay $0 in income taxes.
Can you cut their income tax rate? So, that only leaves the remaining income
tax payers. The person getting $900 per paycheck is getting a smaller tax cut
than the person who gets $100 per paycheck.Why do you covet the
wealth of others? If you earned $500,000 wouldn't you want to keep as much
as you could?
@ RedshirtSo you think a country without environmental protections,
Social Security, student aid, and health care for the poor and elderly would be
a good thing?Wow...Just wow.Unbelievable
ignorance on history. Get Educated
It's still shocking to see the argument about whether the common man is
going to get anything out of this bill. Technically of course some
will, but best guess right now is that someone making between 75 and 100K will
get $1300. That's $50 a pay check. Of course $50 is $50 but
you think this is something to crow about...really?Then look what
happens. The family making over 100K will get $100 a pay check, noticeable.200K to 500K gets $250 a paycheck, and of course if you make over 500K and
less than a thousand you get nearly $900 a paycheck. Personally I
couldn't care less what an individual makes or has, but I do care that
someone who makes 5 times as much as me will get nearly 20 times more in
benefits from this tax bill.Again you know you're in a
plutocracy when laws are specifically designed to protect the wealth of the
To "The Real Maverick" cuts are easy. First, look at the Constitution
and see what is in there. If a department or spending item isn't
specifically mentioned, cut it. That means no EPA, no Obamacare, no Department
of Education, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no student loans, no
WIC, etc....To "Thomas Jefferson " actually cutting taxes
does NOT add to the deficit. Deficits can only be created by spending more than
is collected in taxes. Tax cuts are NOT a spending category.To
"Esquire" according to the CBO the budget has not been balanced since
1957. Obama cut the deficit after increasing it. His average deficit was still
larger than Bush's, showing that he was more irresponsible.
@unrepentant- Bozeman, MTRE: "Based on what I know, and what has been
reported, I know that many of us in high income tax states with reasonably good
incomes will be hurt"...---Is Montana a "highly taxed
State"?1 to 6.9 percent is not "Highly Taxed".You seem to include yourself in the "many of us in high income tax
states".And even if Montana was highly taxed... should you be
able to pay less to Federal Government because your State taxes you so much? What you pay to your State is irrelevant to the Federal Government.
They still need you to pay your Federal Income Taxes. Your State is not going
to fund the things the Federal Government funds. So why should you deduct what
you paid to your State from the Federal Government?Explain how it is
fair for high taxed States to deduct their high State taxes from the Federal
Government.The rule allowing you to write-off State Taxes from your
Federal Tax bill never made sense. It was written into the tax code to get a
previous tax bill passed (so high taxed States would vote for it).Why should paying high State taxes mean you owe less in Federal Taxes? It
doesn't.Glad that silly rule is gone.
@2bits"Paying less is not detrimental to you Democrats"By itself it isn't. If you couple it with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid
to pay for it it's a big problem since the cost-benefits would be tilted
towards helping the rich and harming the poor and lower middle class.
@Shaun 6:42 p.m.RE: "Do you not see the irony in telling others not to
believe partisan rhetoric of the left but then you buy into the partisan
rhetoric of right claiming this tax cut will benefit the middle class"...---The problem with your assumption is... my statement that most will
pay less in 2018 is not based on political rhetoric. It's based on
conversations with my two brothers who are trained CPAs and professional Tax
Accountants (not politicians). I asked some neighbors who are tax professionals
as well. Also googled it. Washington Post agrees.Bad assumption
(that it was based on partisan rhetoric).==@Frozen
Fractals 1:13RE: @2bits Of course most people will pay less in taxes in
2018, this bill isn't paid for,"...---I didn't say it
was paid for. Did I?That's my biggest problem with it.
It's going to increase the debt.My comment was specifically
about the claim that, "never in history had a tax change been so detrimental
to so many people".Paying less is not detrimental to you
Democrats. Even if businesses also got a tax cut, and it's permanent.Someone else getting even more benefit does not equal harm to you. Most
Americans will pay less.
2bits, "Ask a CPA, not a partisan person. And most important... don't
believe everything you hear said by MSNBC news/talk show host. "I like one thing you say here. "And most important..". Nice to see
someone get that right for a change. However I adamantly disagree
with the rest, even though you try and be even handed by mentioning Fox. I
watch both and am well aware of confirmation bias, and have studied it
thoroughly. Given that MSNBC on average is far more evenhanded than FOX. They
are very good at giving voice to the heart of the conservative movement. The
leaders of the Freedom Caucus are on with Chuck Todd all the time. More important though, is the indisputable fact that this tax bill gives great
advantage to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Yes you get some, but
they get a lot.You know you're in a Plutocracy when a vast
majority of public policy is specifically designed to protect the wealth of the
wealthy. We are there.Plutocracies don't guarantee outcomes,
every once in a while the people win, but they hold sway enough to destroy the
true meaning of democracy.
2 bitsI kinda know how to figure out taxes. I can read and take the
known variables into account. Oh, and BTW, I read the WSJ everyday and follow
other media outlets than MSNBC, particularly for financial news. Assumptions
make an, well you know the rest of the aphorism.Based on what I
know, and what has been reported (though we really don't know all of the
consequences of the many penciled in loopholes inserted into the Hatch/trump tax
bill), the vast majority of the dollar benefits go to the already vastly
wealthy. Indisputable.Based on what I know, and what has been
reported, I know that many of us in high income tax states with reasonably good
incomes will be hurt. Undebatable.Based on what I know and what
has been reported, most people will receive little financial benefits from the
Hatch/trump bill. That what little benefits do accrue average people will
expire in less than 10 years, but that the benefits to the rich/powerful remain
in force. Fact.I don't know any other way to sum it up but
than to say: rarely has a bill been passed that gave away so much to so few to
the detriment of so many.Get educated, as another poster might say.
@2bitsOf course most people will pay less in taxes in 2018, this bill
isn't paid for, it's a 1.5 trillion handout thrown onto the deficit, a
deficit that Ryan will argue requires cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to deal with
and if he succeeds in that, then a tax cut that primarily benefits the rich will
be paid for with cuts to programs that primarily benefit the poor and elderly.
And if that happens... well then are the people at the bottom and in the middle
really benefiting overall? Of course, Republicans won't get
Medicaid cuts through the Senate, there's enough of them (very few... but
there only has to be 2) sane enough that they know going down the Ryan route is
an electoral disaster. So I guess the question is... for the people in the
middle class getting a small tax cut... is 1.5 trillion on the deficit worth it
for a temporary (the business cuts are permanent but the individual ones
disappear) tax cut? Certainly a good deal for the wealthy.
2bits wrote: "Turn off MSNBC and consult a Tax Expert (A non-partisan CPA).
The CPAs I've talked to said most middle-class Americans will pay
less."So I did. I asked my neighbor, who is a CPA. His
reply?Laughter and a comment that cannot be quoted in DN.Make America Sane (and Safe) Again
@2bitsDo you not see the irony in telling others not to believe
partisan rhetoric of the left but then you buy into the partisan rhetoric of
right claiming this tax cut will benefit the middle class?
"Never happen. How would the party of free stuff buy votes if they
couldn't steal from our children's children?"Surely
that refers to the GOP because Democrats are not afraid to increase taxes if
necessary. We clearly saw the real Republican attitude toward deficit spending
in the so-called Tax Reform they just shoved through.
@unrepentant progressiveRE: "Rarely has a bill been passed that gave
away so much to so few to the detriment of so many "...---Excellent partisan malarkey. But not tax reality.Turn off MSNBC
and consult a Tax Expert (A non-partisan CPA). The CPAs I've talked to
said most middle-class Americans will pay less. (depending on your deductions
last year).But it's not like they portray it on MSNBC,
That's partisan malarkey. Not tax reality.Turn off MSNBC and
Google "Will your taxes go up or down in 2018 under the new tax
bill"...-"Most Americans are expected to see an immediate
tax cut in 2018" (Washington Post)Some will pay more, depending
on their deductions in 2017 and filing status, but Most Americans will pay less
in 2018.Ask a CPA, not a partisan person. And most important...
don't believe everything you hear said by MSNBC news/talk show host. Same
goes for FOXNews talk show hosts. Don't believe them. Check it first.
Most of it's partisan malarkey.Better yet... give it a year and
see if you pay more... or less!How much can it hurt to wait a year
and see for sure?
We do need to balance the budget. But a balanced budget amendment is unlikely.
The last time we had a few balanced budgets it was because both Democrats and
Republicans worked together to make it happen. Both took hits for their pet
programs. Without that mindset, balanced budgets are not possible (sleight of
hand is always available to make things look one way and be another).
A BB amendment would be utterly meaningless. In a state of war, the whole
budget would change to a war footing, and since we are now on a permanent war
footing, no balanced budget! Ergo, George Will's bowtie is on
too tight, as usual.
I like the idea of a bal. budget amendment too.Imagine a world where
the Government could live within it's means (meaning they are required by
law to not spend more money than they can take from the people).I
know it sounds great. But it will never happen.As soon as a
politician says, "We're going to have to cut your favorite entitlement
program if we can't borrow more money"... people panic, and tell their
representatives to fight AGAINST a balanced-budget.It's sad,
but it's reality.We will never have a balanced budget.
The US combined total gross national debt in November 0f 2016 was $19.8 trillion
dollars. No doubt about it ...... President Trump is responsible for our
national debt that he inherited when he took office.I've never
yet seen a liberal that will take responsibility for anything they've had
their hands in.
After the trump/Hatch billionaire welfare bill, the country needs a bath not a
balanced budget.Rarely has a bill been passed that gave away so much
to so few to the detriment of so many. And all to give trump a developer's
tax break, corporations more wiggle room for tax evasion and gifts to the Gates
family, the Walton heirs and all the other assorted billionaires out there.Oh, we do need to rein in some expenses, but we also need to pay for
what we have already committed. And that means that we don't have the
money to give away to the already well-off.But trump and Hatch
don't really care about any of that do they?
I like the idea of a bal. budget amend.—though not sure how practical it
is, as natural disasters are likely to become more numerous & severe w/
escalating global warming and we're likely to be spending more & more
of budget in ensuing years on clean-up/financial aid. But it might be doable if
the pres. has to pay for his own vacations—just like everyone
else—and limit the excesses (chartered flights, excess S.S. detail,
unjustifiable salaries, etc.) of his cabinet. I'm also not averse to
examining entitlement prog. to see if they can be made more efficient w/o
cutting needed services, or can do more to help people become self-sufficient
(“Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for
a lifetime”). But some people need the help w/o being required to work
(recently saw heartbreaking PBS story of older woman struggling to care
for/support her 2 autistic adult sons who need constant supervision.)I also like idea of term limits for Congress, or making them ineligible for
reelection w/o bal. budget, to keep career politicians from doing so much
damage, & make them a little more humble. But that's unlikely to
happen, since they are the ones who make the laws.
@Copybook Headings – “Never happen. How would the party of free
stuff buy votes if they couldn't steal from our children's
never happen.How would the
party of tax cuts for the donor class secure their campaign contributions if
they couldn’t steal from our children’s children.
Orrin Hatch pushed for this "Balanced Budget Amendment" for nearly all
of his 42 years in the Senate.He leaves having passed the GOP
taxscam for the wealthy, and INCREASING the debt another $1.5 Trillion --
and all this during in GOOD - WallStreet breaking all-time record - high
Somewhere online is a nifty website where you can play around with the budget
and see the effects of various changes. I was able to balance the budget and
even run a surplus without causing any great suffering. It wasn't even that
difficult. Yes, the wealthy would have paid a bit more, but far less than I
supposed, and yes, they would still be filthy rich. I also applied some means
testing to Social Security and Medicare. What this exercise goes to show is that
we run a perpetual deficit for two reasons: first, the wealthy are undertaxed
and, second, lobbyists own Congress. If you look at the numbers without being
beholden to some special interest, it's fairly easy to force the country to
live within its means. I should add that I didn't make any changes that
would adversely affect the poor or the disabled.
@ Copybook Headings, the party of free stuff is the GOP, right? You've
seen the tax bill, right?@ Cactus Pete , you may be right about the
interest we pay (which a lot of goes right back to the taxpayers), but I assume
you would agree that a huge tax cut is the wrong way to go. If I'm in
debt, the last thing I want to do is deliberately cut my income.@
FT, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and social security are some of the things
that keep the US from becoming a third world country.@
pragmatistferlife , add campaign finance reform. Take the money out of
elections, influencing Congress, etc. No gifts, no meals, no trips, no
donations, nothing. Period. No exceptions. No maximum limits beyond zero.
The surest path to a balanced budget, which will take a while to achieve, is
Democratic control of the White House. Clinton and Obama either balanced or
lowered the annual deficit, only to have it undone by Republican
administrations. And it is the only time, yes the only time, when Republicans
care one whit about the deficit. Otherwise, the Republicans are gleeful in
raising deficit spending.
So I need to hear a proposal from somebody as to how we determine what is
critical spending and what is not. There will always be differences in opinion
but reasonable discussion is needed. I think Warren Buffet is
correct, we need to eliminate the necessity for pandering to the plutocrats, and
allow Congress to actually think of what is best for the country. "How would the party of free stuff buy votes ". Uninformed attitudes
like this don't help. First of all the problem is ascribed to one party
and secondly critical social services are seen as free stuff.Term
limits is where this starts. We need to re-align the interests of the Congress
with the interests of the people. The key to an Oligarchy is the
political system is focused on defending the wealth of the oligarchs. You need
look no further than the recent tax bill. Yup the average Joe got a few hundred
here and a few thousand there but the 1% got millions. Why does
Congress pass such legislation when the public disapproves so soundly..because
that's not who they are listening to.
The GOP's tax cut bill was intended to starve the beast and for it to not
contribute significantly to our debt they'll need to slay it. Do they
really think they can maintain power if they cut medicare, medicaid, food stamps
and limit the growth of social security? Isn't going to happen because the
majority of Americans don't want our country to look like Mexico or the
streets of India.
Right after the huge giveaway to billionaires which will add more than a
trillion to the debt. The GOP does not have the country's best interest in
mind. Never did.
So what are we gonna cut?Health care for old people? Young kids? How's that going to make America great again?
You make a good point Marxist, that's why any such amendment should allow
for short term emergency debts. The cost of allowing the financial industry to
collapse in 2008 would have lead to a great Depression and far greater pain so
the ability to incur temporary debts for such events and other national
emergencies needs to exist. But we need to wean the federal government off of
debt before it really starts hurting the economy.
Laughable, the GOP only believes in such things when they have no power, when in
charge deficits, budgets, fiscal responsibility suddenly become a foreign
marxist - Salt Lake City, UT“Compound interest is the eighth
wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't
... pays it.” ― Albert EinsteinThe United States now
pays $266 billion a year in interest on our debt. Think of all the things we
could do with that money if we weren't so deep in debt.
Never happen. How would the party of free stuff buy votes if they couldn't
steal from our children's children?
Had we not been able to run federal deficits during the opening years of the
2008 collapse that collapse would have resulted in another great depression.