Fiscal Restraint

[Amnorix]

I wish someone in Congress had some....


I just want to be clear to every Republican/right-winger that has argued that Democrats/liberals are responsible for our ridiculous deficit and national debt -- the tax cut bill and the budget increase that just got through a Congress that Republicans control, with a Republican POTUS signing into law (presumably), clearly establishes that it's all just talk.

NEITHER PARTY gives a damn about the deficit or debt, and neither party can claim any moral high ground on the topic.

Which sucks for all Americans IMHO.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

I laugh at the lefties on here claiming fiscal responsibility. Our military is in disarray, despite what Loon says. It is well documented and is truly one are where the Federal Government should spend money. Military, along with the other discretionary expenditures in this proposal, are not the true issue. While I would like to have seen more fiscal restraint, needing 60 votes in the Senate wasn't going to produce anything more fiscally restrained. The true reform needs to come from entitlements. Paul Ryan proposed looking at this in 2018 and the Dems went nuts accusing him of wanting to kill old people and kill children.

We weren't going to tax our way out of this problem. It has been argued on here over and over if tax cuts will create growth at more than 2.3% GDP which would increase revenues. So far so good. The other half now needs to be addressed. We need to cut entitlement spending as the debt will lead to more money being printed which puts debt pressure on the markets and increases inflation.

I have said on here before. This will either be done through legislation and bipartisanship reform of entitlements, or unfortunately forced austerity measures down the road.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Jim Hammer]

Originally Posted by patteeu

To preserve our national defense. Is your recommendation that we design our military to be just barely better than our adversaries so that they have a fighting chance?

We're going to war against China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, UK, and Japan all at the same time?

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Fish

... everybody shake your war boner....

No shit.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

We're going to war against China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, UK, and Japan all at the same time?

Are we? Why?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

We're going to war against China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, UK, and Japan all at the same time?

Am I correct in thinking you have served in the military or am I confusing you with someone else?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Fish

... everybody shake your war boner....

DOD superiority is about not having to go to war.

[Jim Hammer]

Originally Posted by vailpass

If you actually need me to explain to you the need for DOD spend there's no point in going any further. I highly doubt you are unaware of the current deficiencies in both equipment and training with which our military is faced.

We spend over 600 billion dollars on defense. Where the **** is all that money going?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

We spend over 600 billion dollars on defense. Where the **** is all that money going?

You were actually a teacher? Did you sustain head trauma since then?

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Has zero real world evidence to back up tax cuts pay for themselves, still believes in that myth.

Conservative Child like mentality.

"It's still real to me!!!"

Bush had a spending problem, not a revenue problem...

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#750331558d52

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

Bush had a spending problem, not a revenue problem...



https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#750331558d52

(it's best if nobody replies to that one)

[Jim Hammer]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

The US Military to the world is what Alabama is to high school football.

The left thinks we should be Missouri.

Missouri would be plenty.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

Costco memberships for everybody!

You must have missed this from the AP article in the tweet, and the fact that the secretary had her W-4 so high that she didn't have much being withheld...

Todd Anderson of Texas and his fiance, who are both educators, got an extra $200 in their paychecks combined that they plan to use to cover the costs of a second baby on its way.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a middle-income household would on average get a tax cut of $930 this year.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

Missouri would be plenty.

You can't be older than 25...

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

Missouri would be plenty.

Oh, you've been trolling the whole time in this thread. My bad, I must need my meter adjusted.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I wish someone in Congress had some....

His name is Rand Paul.