<checks forum, confirms that it is indeed Great Debates>
Wow HD, you make a very convincing rebuttal.
Really? Here is the CBO’s chart for 2017. It shows:
Net interest = $263B
Defense spending = $590B
Nondefense (discretionary) = $610B
“Other” = $614B
Medicaid = $375B
Medicare = $591B
Social Security = $939B
You think “everything else is almost trivial”? Even the $610B in non-defense discretionary spending? And the $614B spent on “other”?
And remember that $190B is a rounding error, right?
I think the charts support my point of view, actually but I thank you for the link. I say SS, Medicare, and Medicaid shouldn’t really count as federal revenues or spending, they have their own revenue source. Now from the chart, the non-defense discretionary spending is $610 billion. OK, so I was mistaken and it is more than defense. But- what do you cut? Transportation? Education? Veteran’s benefits? If you were in charge, which of these would feel the blow of your mighty ax?
So because you perceive Democrats to have behaved irresponsibly, you think it’s just fine if Republicans behave irresponsibly? Your side controls the House, the Senate, the White House and (for all intents and purposes) the Supreme Court. Excusing your fiscal irresponsibility with whataboutism is utterly craven.
If the republicans intended to extend the temporary tax cuts, they wouldn’t have bothered making the tax cuts for the super-rich permanent. What they actually did is set up a situation where they can either lambast the democrats for not perpetuating your tiny tax cut - or just sit back and ignore the situation if the democrats are not in a position to take flak for allowing them to expire. After all, it’s not like they give a fuck about your tax cut - if they did it would be as permanent as everyone else’s.
The trends I’m talking about there extend over the last couple of decades, at least.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. "
- Alexis de Tocqueville
You’re welcome and it’s refreshing to see a simple acknowledgement of an error. I think it’s worth noting that, at least in a number of categories, that chart shows net spending, that is, how much the federal government is spending on those programs after “their own revenue source” has been accounted for. For example, Medicare is “spending minus income from premiums and other offsetting receipts” and Other is “minus income from offsetting receipts”.
I’d be fine with something like “the Penny Plan”.
Including the time when GHWB raised taxes, and Republicans revolted on him and he lost re-election?
Including the time where, based on those higher taxes and a booming economy under Clinton, the deficit was erased?
Or are you talking about the times when Republican Administrations got tax cuts with pretty good economies (Reagan, GWB) and managed to spike the deficits?
Or maybe you think that during a major recession, lowering the deficit is more important than people having food stamps and unemployment so that they do not starve?
Don’t make me laugh.
That article is written by the one Senator most responsible for authoring tax cuts that are increasing the debt by nearly $2 trillion without cutting any spending whatsoever.
Essentially nobody is in danger of starving to death in America today, certainly not because of a lack of funds. Food stamps don’t prevent starvation, they allow people to spend their cash on cigarettes and beer because their food is taken care of.
You know, I’m relatively certain that you and I have never voted the same way but there is no need for us to be disagreeable just because we disagree.
SS will soon be cashing in its T-bills and relying on a bit more than revenues, that is true. This was of course the reason for racking up those massive SS surpluses in the first place.
But I’m not so sure that your “penny plan” is practicable. I shall return later when I’m more convinced of that.
You didn’t ask for a cite, you asked for information. The very fact that you asked tells me that you don’t know and your attempt to spin that as something else tells me even more.
When we hit 10 percent unemployment in 2008, you would have been happy eliminating food stamps to save money and reduce the deficit?
But at at time of full employment, you support the debt-raising tax cuts because you, a person with a pretty good salary, would like a couple more thousand dollars in your pocket each year?
That’s pretty cold.
Here’s what I have to say, then: the only way the question of how regressive state income taxes are bears on what I was saying in my response to septimus earlier is that they’re less regressive than state sales taxes.
Are you questioning that? If not, then I’m really not interested in discussing it further; I’ve answered his question accurately.
If you are questioning that - if you think state income taxes might be even more regressive than sales taxes - all I can say is, are you fucking kidding me??
And finally, if you want to nitpick over some side issue that has nothing to do with the question septimus asked, and my answer, you’ll have to do it by yourself.
Just as a point of information, the unemployment rate didn’t hit 10% until October 2009.
Like I said, my preference would be something along the lines of the penny plan, with across-the-board cuts, perhaps with some carve-outs determined by Congress. I wasn’t advocating for food stamps to be cut in 2009 (but I don’t think I would have lifted a finger to oppose it if it were a realistic possibility).
I’m guessing that this is where you’re headed with the food stamps argument, so I’ll meet you there: Yes, I’m fully aware that the food stamps program is also “little more than a rounding error” in our overall federal budget, and that cutting it, even to zero, wouldn’t solve our budget shortfall by itself.
That couple more thousand dollars was certainly one reason I supported it.
Republicans can’t win with your side. You guys either accuse them of “voting against their economic interests” or being “pretty cold” when they vote for their economic interests.
That isn’t a plan. That is simplemindedness presented as if it were a plan. Are we all supposed to slap out foreheads and go, “Gollleeee, when you put it like that it is as if you haven’t just proposed cutting $1 trillion from the budget!”
The question was: cut What?
You may not like taxes but they are a means of paying for government spending. So the Democrats have a realistic plan.
The Republican plan is to hope there are a lot of voters who won’t be able to figure out that they don’t have a plan.
Your admission that you find both plans equally convincing explains which party you support.
No, we’re saying you don’t understand what your economic interests are. Sure, the government can cut your taxes this year. And you’ll think “Wow, this is great” and vote them back into office.
But they’re paying for your tax cut by borrowing more money. So they gave you a two thousand dollar tax cut and put you three thousand dollars in debt. That’s not a good deal for you.