The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017 ... ef=d-river" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Analysts say a reckoning is coming — even as Republicans seek tax cuts that will add at least $1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have been fought with borrowed money, enough to require up to $8 trillion in interest payments in coming decades, a new report says.

Unlike America’s previous wars, its 21st-century conflicts have been paired not with a tax hike or massive sale of U.S. bonds, but a tax cut. The federal government has been operating at a deficit since 2002, accruing a national debt that now totals $20 trillion and counting.

I thought that my party was the party of financial responsibility. I think that we are heading for the day when the world considers us a deadbeat nation.

The irony is delicious that now there is concern about the debt.

Come on, Obama took office with 9 trillion and left having added 10.

Trump's tax cuts would at least stimulate the economy if the Senate's Republican lardbutts can wake up and pass some.

No, the irony isn't delicious, johnny. As always, you're pointing at the other guy instead of looking at yourself.

Now YOU suddenly don't care about the deficit any longer.

You're already hypocritically making excuses for the predictable deficit and simply shrugging it off.

John, once again you miss the point of my post. Reread the part that says the post-9/11 wars were fought with borrowed money. Reread the part that says we face $8 trillion in interest payments. if I remember correctly it was Bush who financed the wars originally with a credit card. Congress has trouble paying their bills. They still owe $1 trillion to Social Security that they borrowed to balance the budget (which didn't happen.)

I thought that my party was the party of financial responsibility.

My Democratic party is even worse than your Republican party when it comes to financial responsibility.

snakeoil wrote:John, once again you miss the point of my post. Reread the part that says the post-9/11 wars were fought with borrowed money. Reread the part that says we face $8 trillion in interest payments. if I remember correctly it was Bush who financed the wars originally with a credit card. Congress has trouble paying their bills. They still owe $1 trillion to Social Security that they borrowed to balance the budget (which didn't happen.)

At least the GOP is trying to fix it. After Ojackass left a 20 some odd Trillion dollar mess.. meanwhile Dms sit by whining and obstructing.

Snakeoil and Clowntoker missed the point of my post.

It doesn't matter what people say on any forum like this.

My post was not narrowly in response to what John Doe or Richard Roe said here.

What does matter is hypocrisy about debt and deficits, and the irony is delicious.

I cared about these matters under Bush, and Obama, and also Trump, and prior presidents dating to Ike.

I'm ashamed of my Democratic party.

johnforbes is missing the point of his own post.

He claims he cared about these matters under Bush, and Obama, and also Trump, and prior presidents dating to Ike, but he won't say a word against the Republican tax proposals that everyone agrees will vastly accelerate the growth of the debt.

It's just what partisan weasels do.

Common tactic among libtards. Claim "Everyone agrees" when everyone knows libtards talk only to other libtards, so in their little world, "Everyone" does agree.

That's why "Everyone" agreed Killery Rotten Clinton was a dead lock for president.

We all know how that, fortunately, worked out.

Can you lead us in prayer Reverend AssClown? Bless you.
Amen.

AssClown, if you want to lead us in prayer, just do it already.

You don't need to keep asking permission.

I guess you've been in prison to long.

Trump is going to explode the national debt through the roof.

Where are the teabaggers when you need them?

Clownslacker has missed the point of his own post and my post.

If there is a meaningful tax it, it will -- as JFK and Reagan knew -- stimulate the economy, so you need to use dynamic scoring.

I don't find the CBO figures credible, nor does anybody except those gullible enough to believe the CBO is non-partisan when it has quite a long history otherwise.

I don't like thinking in terms of a 1.5 trillion increase, but we need to get the GDP growth which Obama never did.

America is running in first gear, and real tax cuts would get it moving again.

Democrats don't want that because, for the most part, they aren't investors anyhow.

John,...According to the CBO (1941 to 2013) Seven Democratic Presidents reduced the National Debt while only three Republican Presidents reduced the Debt. The exalted God of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, increased the National Debt in both of his terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ublic_debt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is run, and added to, by people who tilt to the Left.

That aside, of course it is correct in this instance. And we all know that presidents of any partisan persuasion can increase the debt.

There are reasons to do it, such as WW II.

There are reasons not to do it, and there are many examples of that.

The notion that the U.S. should just stagger along with low GDP growth (as Obama had) is a mistake.

Cut taxes for everybody, and don't forget the people who create jobs.

elklindo69 wrote:Trump is going to explode the national debt through the roof.

Where are the teabaggers when you need them?

Then why is the Democrat Socialist Communist party doing nothing but obstructing instead of jumping in to help out..

Dimwit, the Democrats aren't even allowed in the room. The Republicans shut themselves away and simply emerge with a ridiculous bill, every time. They don't let the Democrats "help out". They don't even have hearings.

Where the fuck have you been this past year, dummy?

The Dems are invited -- indeed, begged into -- this.

But the Democrats have refused to cooperate with, or negotiate with, Trump or his people on any subject at any time.

johnny, not a thing in your post is even remotely true.

It is the exact opposite of the truth.

He claims he cared about these matters under Bush, and Obama, and also Trump, and prior presidents dating to Ike, but he won't say a word against the Republican tax proposals that everyone agrees will vastly accelerate the growth of the debt.

Any investment in the future results in upfront debt. Obama was all about SPENDING and collecting more taxes depriving Americans and businesses of their spending abilities. This new plan collects less taxes up front but the expansions in businesses and spending (non-government) will result a future influx of taxes as a result of more wealth/spending among all Americans, economics 101. Trump will need a second term to make it happen but it can happen.

Tool, tax cuts to the wealthy are not an "investment in the future". It is a gift to rich people's rich friends.

The corporations who will benefit are already sitting on hundreds of billions in cash. They are awash in money. And the bulk of them already don't pay more than 13% in taxes. They could be investing that money in fully tax deductible capital spending and job creation right now, but they aren't. And they won't.
And the mega-rich who won't have an estate tax any longer won't spend a nickel of it to create jobs. They will simply invest it in hard assets, which they will buy from other rich people or from poor countries, taking them from the people who live where the resources are.

Now an infrastructure bill is a valid excuse for deficit spending because for every dollar spent there would be a $5-$10 return on investment. But Republicans aren't working on an infrastucture bill, which would be enthusiastically supported by Democrats. And such a bill would actually create jobs, unlike the tax cuts which have failed to do squat for the past 40 years other than increase the debt.
Giving tax breaks to dynastic wealth is contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers who rightfully feared such wealth. And so should you.

As JFK knew, tax cuts stimulate the economy.

You get a smaller slice (tax revenues) of a bigger pie.

Democrats can't think any farther than the end of their nose, but to be fair that is quite a distance given the length of Clownslacker's nose.

Clown has a checkers mindset while the real world is about chess. Trump gets it, that's why he exceeded EVERY prediction in less than a year in office. By the time Trump completes his 8th year in office the vast majority of Americans will push for a 3rd term for him. The dude is that good!

As any intelligent person knows, all tax cuts DON'T stimulate the economy. Some just give money to rich people and return nothing to the country or the economy.

For example, eliminating the estate tax on a few thousand mega-rich people will not stimulate the economy at all. It will not create a single job. And it will increase the debt, which in turn will increase interest payments on the debt with money that could have been spent to actually create jobs.
And giving more money to corporations already sitting on billions of dollars is not going to create a single new job either.

johnforbes knows all this but he posts his nonsense anyway.

For example, eliminating the estate tax on a few thousand mega-rich people will not stimulate the economy at all.

What right does the government have to tax money that's already been taxed if it's staying in the family? Sure there will be taxes when it's spent but it shouldn't be taxed again for just passing it on. Just because a person has been able to save more than others doesn't mean they should be punished, it's already been taxed.

Exactly, the estate tax is immoral anyhow.

As to cutting taxes on the rich, a good tax bill should cut taxes for EVERYBODY.

And it depends on definitions because, by some of them, a person like me might meet that definition.

Which is laughable because I remember hoping, as a kid, that one day I could get a minimum wage job which would be easier than the agricultural manual labor I was doing for much less than minimum wage (which was then $1).

It is the "rich" who create jobs, who hire people.

The Reverend Homo AssClown's masters in the People's Glorious Revolutionary Politboro have ordered him to push the tired old canard of tax cuts for the wealthy, and so he does.

Pee-Lousey and Up Chuck Schumer are right behind yammering along because they know their brain dead constituents buy it every time without a moment of critical thought.