I wonder how many conservatives on this board think that there’s an actual possibility that the self-described “king of debt” will just renegotiate all the debt he’s racking up during his presidency.
Or declare bankruptcy and stiff all his creditors, like he does with his casinos.
But he thinks all he has to do is just print more money, like some shithole dictator.
I’m uncertain what my tax bill will be next year, but I know what my insurance premiums are (more than they were the year before) and I don’t blame “Obamacare not fixing it,” for that is a simplistic and well-poisoned argument in the first place. Yes I blame the Republicans, who Trump leads, for fucking up health care and Obama being stymied in his efforts by those very Republicans reinforces my points. But yeah, fuck the GOP works for me as a general motto, if you got nothing else going for you.
This seems to be the only portion of your post that relates to a forthright discussion about the tax cuts. I too am “uncertain”, but I suspect that it’ll be smaller, at least as a % of my income, than it was last year. This pleases me, so fuck the Dems.
If the Dems take over the House, and the deficit goes up, that would mean that they will be increasing spending. If the GOP blocks them from raising taxes, and they don’t spend more, the deficit will remain the same, not go up.
Actually, a spending freeze would reduce the deficit because revenues tend to increase, all other things being equal (they never are).
If we wanted to reduce the deficit, Dems would agree to cut spending and GOP-ers to increase taxes. So we won’t reduce the deficit.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, fuck our children too. Those suckers will have to pay for Americans wanting the government to spend more and not pay for it. Intergenerational theft is the best!
By having a Democrat in the WH. Leslie Lynch King Jr. was the last “Republican” President who maintained a more-or-less level deficit. Since President 666, a R in the WH has boosted red ink, while having a D in the WH has tended to result in moves toward balance. A change in Congress may make a difference, but history does not support it. I blame Nobel Prize winner Milt Friedman, his Chicago School ideology and Art Laffer’s cocktail-napkin scribbling. Amongst others.
I’m technically a Millenial, and something of a law-and-order Republican, so I’m not a fan of intergenerational theft, but most of it (at least what has already been accomplished or planned) predates the Trump tax cuts.
That’s hypothetically true. But it’s about as likely to happen as having the national debt paid off by the money fairy delivered gold bars.
Republicans often say they’re going to cut government spending. But they never do it. Look at Reagan. He said cutting down the size of government was one of the main goals of his administration. But the amount of money spend by the government increased every year he was President.
Democrats spend government money and pay for it with taxes. Republicans spend government money and borrow money to pay for it.
And the Trump tax cuts help, how? Are they:
- Making the situation better
- Making the situation worse
- There’s no difference to the situation
ETA: Further, let’s say Republicans propose another unpaid for tax cut that will result in you taking more money home. Is your response still, “I’ve got mine, jack, fuck the Democrats?”
Funny, younger Republicans (IME) seem to have no other principal other than “fuck the Dems,” also know as “if it pisses off the libruls it’s a good thing.”
I honestly don’t understand why there’s not more outrage over this budget situation, the lies involved in Republican economic theory (supply side economics, repatriation, Laffer curve, ridiculous growth estimates a la Kansas), and the fact that you’ve been duped about this nonsense for decades.
Like, HD, can’t you dig deep down into your soul and care as much about the fact that Republicans have, for the umpteenth time, borrowed money from my children’s future earnings in order to pay for unnecessary tax cuts? If taxation without representation is something to get worked up over, then christ, is there a better cause then taxing kids?
You get a small tax cut, the rich get a big tax cut, and corporations get a big tax cut that they’ve mostly plowed into stock purchases which help the relatively rich stock holders (and their execs) and the workers not at all.
Unless you own lots of stock, you’re being taken.
And when the recession hits those stock buybacks are going to look stupid.
Stupid for the corporations perhaps. Not stupid for the rich stockholders and executives who directed the buybacks and took advantage of them.
BTW, was the post you responded to of the form “Tax cuts is always good for me. Go team!”? Do we have Dopers whose thinking is this simplistic?
Did the post he responded to include the word “always”?
Finding the answer to that question might also expose the answer to your questions.
Agreed. The chances that Democrats will not increase spending no matter what the deficit are extremely low.
And Democrats often say they’re going to increase government spending, and they always do.
Regards,
Shodan
And do you believe, against ample evidence to the contrary, that a Republican Congress will cut spending?
OK. So you especially approve of tax cuts which run counter to all economic wisdom and which even David Tepper says “were too steep and likely borrowed economic growth from the future.” Got it.
David Tepper is a very successful and respected businessman sometimes called the “golden god” of hedge fund management.
“counter to all economic wisdom” seems like an overly-broad claim. If I can find an economist that disagrees, would you be willing to retract this claim?
I’m generally supportive of tax cuts, but not “always”, as I’ve previously noted. I don’t particularly care that one billionaire opposed them, because I find it easy to imagine that at least one billionaire also supported them. Do you, also, find that easy to imagine?
I was clearly referring to this tax cut, not all tax cuts. Not all of them drove corporate behavior the way I mentioned.
Not to mention I think I said earlier that tax cuts during a recession make sense. So no, I never said always bad either.
(How to structure them to work the best is another issue.)
You seem to be confused. Do you realize these tax cuts will cost you tour social security and Medicare? You will lose far more than you gain. Unless you are in a payday-loan level of desperation, or unless you are a multi-millionaire, it is a very bad deal for you.
Do you dispute this? And for everyone who is griping about spending, do you not recognize debt interest as spending? When the government takes in maybe $3.5 trillion a year in good times, do you really think it is a good idea to rocket the debt interest from ~$200 billion a year to over a trillion dollars? Are you so blinded by ideology and “fuck the Dems” that you think the entire nation should be effectively enslaved like this to a small claque of the super wealthy, people who have made puppets out of GOP Congress critters and entire news networks to lie to you constantly to convince you there is some other purpose behind it?