Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by MolonLabe2009, Apr 11, 2018.
Scroll all the way down to where it says "All Federal Spending"...
He made his comment by "drowning" the comparison of expenditures in the total of Federal expenditures. (It's an old trick.)
There is a reason why our National Accounting distinguishes between Mandatory Budgeting and Discretionary Budgeting. (The foremost of which is to protect the business interests of the DoD-suppliers who donate one helluva-lotta-muney to the Replicant Party! But the Dems whilst in power never wanted to change the accounting procedures either.)
What most Americans do not realize is that National Tertiary Education should be guaranteed also in the Mandatory Budget. By reducing the budget of the DoD, and shifting that expenditure to the Mandatory Budget. WHICH IS ONLY AN ACCOUNTING CHANGE at the Federal level!
Of course, that will mean that America can no longer DEFEND THE WORLD. But, until the earth is attacked by creatures from another universe, that is ACCEPTABLE!
There is no difference mandatory and discretionary because I have no fricking choice in the matter.
You act like I have a choice to participate in Social Security and Medicare. Well, I don't. I'm FORCED to participate in those programs which makes it no difference than any other tax.
Try to keep up.
Of course you have a choice. You (plural) are trying to reelect Donald Dork to the presidency of the nation! It's not him that is going to give America low-cost National Health Care or its kids free post-secondary schooling!
Moreover, a more liberal Congress (taking over the Senate, for example) would put an effective stop DD's inanities. But, people like you are soooooo set in their ways they think that, because they've got a job, all is well in America.
That aint necessarily so. Because the very future of the US is at stake under present circumstance!
Take your blinders off ... !
No I don't have a choice. I'm forced to pay SS and Medicare. Those programs are not optional.
YOU make a declarative statement, then YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY FACT BASED PROOF THAT IT HAS WORKED IN THE RECENT PAST! All you can do is say "should" and "could", which as any grade school teacher will tell you, is NOT proof of a working system.
What I stated is FACT....and trying to shore up Trump's version of this is a clear definition of economic and social insanity.
What I stated is fact also.
Cut taxes and slash spending even more. It will work. Just like you spending less than you make. Understand?????
Because both Social Security and Medicare are rightful subventions of the Federal Government - voted by Congress a long, long time ago.
You need a lesson in the history of the nation ... !
What does his fricking have to do with what I said?
I already know how fricking SS and Medicare came about.
There is no such thing as non-discretionary spending when one is forced to participate in said program.
Try to keep up.
Buy a dictionary to see the difference between the two words. (The US has two parts to its Budget, one discretionary spending the other non-discretionary. Debt maintenances is NOT DISCRETIONARY because it is unavoidable.
And keep your mindless sarcasm to yourself! This is a DEBATE forum ...
I know they call SS and Medicare non-discretionary and it shouldn't be because SS and Medicare revenue are no different than any other tax and it's spending is no different than any other spending.
You are taking the notion of "liberty" way too far.
Social Security and National Health are NOT DISCRETIONARY expenditures. They are both fundamental to a decent standard of living, and no country should be without them ...
That is a matter of opinion.
Your repeating yourself does not make any claim you make a fact. Valid documentation does, and as the chronology of the posts shows, you don't have any to support your statements. You're done, insipid stubbornness non-withstanding.
So, spending less than what you make isn't going to create a surplus?
translation: this guy STILL cannot provide valid documentation of his original claim, and keeps parroting the claim and trying to build on it....without valid documentation. All one has to do is click back on the links in this discussion to see his folly....made even more pitiful by the faux condescending hysterics. I'll only respond when MolonLabe can meet a simple burden of proof as originally requested.
Documentation? It's fricking common sense.
Spending less than you make will lead to a surplus. That's just a fricking fact.
For the rich.
The republicans love to beat dead horses, I think. Therefore it is so, I think.
Tax hikes are bad for everyone, but the rich are always able to avoid high taxes.
The Income Tax Code is written by and for the rich.
that is because the rich are the job creators
Yes, the rich do create a lot of jobs. They are also able to pay off the corrupt politicians who write the tax laws to create loopholes for them - you know - protection money.
“Media reports on government actions, whether debates, legislation, or regulation, almost always present them in terms of pure policy. New laws are for a specific purpose, perhaps even a noble one. But what if that isn't the real purpose of the exercise? What if politics is largely about fund-raising and moneymaking? The commercial motives of the Permanent Political Class in acting or not acting are rarely questioned and virtually never fully understood.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, BuyVotes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013. p. 2, 3.
Separate names with a comma.