The National Debt ($35 trillion). The Federal Budget Deficit.

#26
#26
n_huffhines said:
How does this justify a huge increase in the ND?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Even most Republicans will now acknowledge that Reagan's tax cuts gave too many breaks to the upper class and his defense spending was higher than what was necessary. I say that as someone who does think that he was (mostly) an effective President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
Thunder Good-Oil said:
But corporate tax collections are a tiny component of the total revenue. Helping business helps hiring. Full employment should help revenues more than even doubling the corporate tax rate. And doubling the corporate tax rate will drive away jobs which results in less revenue for the federal budget. Dems just need to stop with their attacks on business and capitalism.
Click to expand...

You didn't devote one word to my argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#29
#29
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Carter left with inflation, interest rates, and unemployment at disastrously high levels. Reagan had to fix the economy, which he did. Also, killing Communism came with a steep economic price. Read the article. It outlines several reasons why the numbers by POTUS aren't necessarily caused by that president. It's an interesting analysis of the debt growth by prez none the less.
Click to expand...

So he fixed interest rates and unemployment by increasing the debt? How? I don't follow.

The increase in debt can't be explained by the economic downturn. It's not like it was so down that government revenue was down. Revenue was up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#30
#30
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Carter left with inflation, interest rates, and unemployment at disastrously high levels. Reagan had to fix the economy, which he did. Also, killing Communism came with a steep economic price. Read the article. It outlines several reasons why the numbers by POTUS aren't necessarily caused by that president. It's an interesting analysis of the debt growth by prez none the less.
Click to expand...

Raegan himself stated how much of a failure the ND was on his part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#31
#31
DinkinFlicka said:
Raegan himself stated how much of a failure the ND was on his part.
Click to expand...

Yeah in the short term Reagan accomplished what he set forth to do. Break the Soviet Union. In the longer term we needed to then dial it back ... and we never did. I really don’t have a problem with the plan. The execution just sucked. Plus you can’t count on 2 prez later in sticking to your playbook.

Yeah. We need to cut spending. Across the board on all programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#32
#32
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah in the short term Reagan accomplished what he set forth to do. Break the Soviet Union. In the longer term we needed to then dial it back ... and we never did. I really don’t have a problem with the plan. The execution just sucked. Plus you can’t count on 2 prez later in sticking to your playbook.

Yeah. We need to cut spending. Across the board on all programs.
Click to expand...
Osama Bin Laden used the same playbook against us. His replacements are executing the same plan.
 
#33
#33
ClearwaterVol said:
You didn't devote one word to my argument.
Click to expand...

Here I'll help you out by stitching together my comments. You're okay with corporate tax cuts as long as they're used directly for hiring. I'm making an analogy that what's good for business is going to be good for employment. I previously pointed out that most of the revenue is a result of taxing employment. Healthy businesses that can compete around the world will create and sustain jobs which generate far more tax revenue than taxing corporations. I'm not in favor of slapping taxes on corporations or rich folk to punish them or to redistribute wealth. I'm not a liberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
Rasputin_Vol said:
Go to Page 103 and lets have a discussion.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

All though personal income taxes are the largest portion of the income pie at 40%, it is not the majority of it. On the other hand, look at the 15% that we are having to borrow to close the gap. What good would any policy be if we don't address the borrowing? Or specifically, can you do ANYTHING with regards to job growth before you have addressed the borrowing?

Now, lets look at the outlays pie graph. The first thing you will notice is our spending on SS/Medicare at 42%. So already, you see we have another immediate problem. We are spending more on entitlements for people who do not work than we are bringing in from people that do work. How do you think we are going to crack that nut when the largest demographic in the country, Baby Boomers, are gradually retiring each day and flooding the system?
Click to expand...

No doubt that fewer people paying into SS and more taking out is a problem, but look at it another way, too. What is automation paying in? Decrease the work force percentage through automation and by manufacturing overseas, and you have a problem when a system is built on a continuing "full size" workforce.

A second (and who knows the extent of the issue) is SS and Medicaid add ons. These are takers who never entered in to the funding or continued funding of the system. I don't put the blame on the legitimate SS and Medicare recipients - after all no one ever gave them a participation option. Even now many of those people are paying taxes on SS income and paying increasing Medicare premiums.

"Entitlement" is a dirty word because it corrupts the term itself. If you pay into a system, you are "entitled" to withdraw from the system. However, "entitlement" as used means just the reverse apparently - people allowed to withdraw for living or being poor or being unhealthy. "Entitled" because lack of personal responsibility generally equals the thought that someone else will pay the way anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvol1
#35
#35
Vol_Doc said:
Cutting spending is the answer. We're already effectively at full employment. Creating new jobs will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...

We are near "full employment" for those actually participating in the workforce. The problem is the increase in people (and not just retired baby boomers) who aren't participating in the workforce.

Remember illegal aliens "work those jobs that Americans won't do" ... unless those jobs were all that was between them and starvation.
 
#36
#36
Cutting spending is a challenge because it is a takeaway from somebody and both parties use that collateral damage to drum up support for their candidates. Also most of the programs' costs are likely payroll. And they are usually jobs for life. Hopefully Trump can eliminate the fat and fire the poor performers.

It will help matters if the designed benefit plan pensions are fully funded for the bloated head count. Hopefully newer hires aren't being given the same unsustainable, sweet deals. Hopefully programs are being staffed with employees only being offered defined contribution plans. Congress of course enjoys the most generous retirement with their insane DBPs. But it's symbolic. Cutting their pensions won't move the needle.
 
#37
#37
SpaceCoastVol said:
Osama Bin Laden used the same playbook against us. His replacements are executing the same plan.
Click to expand...

That ploy would be pretty ignorable if we used our military to protect our borders rather than defending everybody else ... unless the Saudis opened up the terrorism checkbook to include nuclear ICBMs.
 
#38
#38
Social Security and Medicare aren't as big of a crisis as the debt IMO. They're trust funds. It's a simple formula. Less will be paid out to recipients or the current rate will go up to fund it if there are shortfalls.
 
#39
#39
AM64 said:
We are near "full employment" for those actually participating in the workforce. The problem is the increase in people (and not just retired baby boomers) who aren't participating in the workforce.

Remember illegal aliens "work those jobs that Americans won't do" ... unless those jobs were all that was between them and starvation.
Click to expand...

This myth that there are still millions of Americans waiting on the sidelines to gobble up new jobs is silly. The reality is that there are many who are mostly underemployed, rather than unemployed by choice. So, creating new jobs may help them. What to do with the void that's left, though? You mentioned illegals. We're cracking down on them, as well as reducing legal immigration. Who is going to fill these new, great-paying jobs? Or who will take up the lower-paying jobs that are left open? Can't have it both ways. As much as folks cringe at immigration, and I'm not an open borders guy either, these immigrants perform a lot of jobs Americans can't or won't, and we'll have to rely on them if we intend to grow the work force. There's no new baby boom on the horizon. Our domestic workforce is only going to shrink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
Vol_Doc said:
This myth that there are still millions of Americans waiting on the sidelines to gobble up new jobs is silly. The reality is that there are many who are mostly underemployed, rather than unemployed by choice. So, creating new jobs may help them. What to do with the void that's left, though? You mentioned illegals. We're cracking down on them, as well as reducing legal immigration. Who is going to fill these new, great-paying jobs? Or who will take up the lower-paying jobs that are left open? Can't have it both ways. As much as folks cringe at immigration, and I'm not an open borders guy either, these immigrants perform a lot of jobs Americans can't or won't, and we'll have to rely on them if we intend to grow the work force. There's no new baby boom on the horizon. Our domestic workforce is only going to shrink.
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be a shortage of willing immigrants. Just need to
fix the system for letting them in. The Dems hope to play the racism card as long as they can to secure votes. Reality though is that Repubs are pro business and will welcome migrant workers if jobs need to be filled.
 
#47
#47
volfanhill said:
Fantastic!
Click to expand...

Shrink government projects across the board, help shift those workers to the private sector to fill these new jobs being created by the tax cuts. This cuts spending, but doesn't cut the tax base. Guaranteed debt reduction.
 
#49
#49
Vol_Doc said:
This myth that there are still millions of Americans waiting on the sidelines to gobble up new jobs is silly. The reality is that there are many who are mostly underemployed, rather than unemployed by choice. So, creating new jobs may help them. What to do with the void that's left, though? You mentioned illegals. We're cracking down on them, as well as reducing legal immigration. Who is going to fill these new, great-paying jobs? Or who will take up the lower-paying jobs that are left open? Can't have it both ways. As much as folks cringe at immigration, and I'm not an open borders guy either, these immigrants perform a lot of jobs Americans can't or won't, and we'll have to rely on them if we intend to grow the work force. There's no new baby boom on the horizon. Our domestic workforce is only going to shrink.
Click to expand...

When talking about the immigrants and jobs its definitely a quandary. I think a big problem is the low paying job itself, meaning the business owner or whomever is employing and setting the wages. Since illegal immigrants are undocumented, then they are not afforded federal protection. Meaning a business owner can pay them as much or little as they want. Whereas if its an American citizen, you have to pay at least minimum wage.

Thats a huge problem with filling jobs you are talking about. If employers would pay at least minimum wage for every job, I think there wouldnt be much problem with American citizens filling those vacancies.

I am not so sure about people being unemployed by choice as much as you. I know several young people who cannot even get a job at a fast food place. I also know some hard working people who have applied to hundreds of places over the past couple of years that cannot get jobs. I am sure there are a good number of people who are unemployed by choice. I just think the number is smaller than some think.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top