Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very good compromise would be to have a matching spending cut for every dollar of tax increase -- and spending cuts across the board. Not just on the working middle class but the loafer class needs to tighten it's belt also.
No, my own link proved me right but since you don't understand intergovernmental debt, on-budget and off-budget I provided another link for the -not-too-bright so that it was all on one pretty little picture that was easy to read. It's from the Treasury Department.
You are clueless. Your own link proved you wrong. You are now trying to exclude part of the actual federal budget to cook the books. It's not working, and has never worked for any of the other bitter, blinkered right wing revisionists who have tried it.
Bush inherited a surplus measured in the hundreds of the billions of dollars... and then he frittered it away. That is the sad history.
That would be the equivalent of doing heart surgery with a hatchet.
No --- that's why I said spending cuts across the board - not targetted only at the middle class or productive people.
We all know the welfare programs aren't doing a thing to reduce poverty as poverty is rapidly rising in spite of all the many billions of dollars wasted on welfare handouts. We need to reward productivity and stop rewarding sloth.
We need to make people want to work hard for their living and save money -- instead of punishing them for doing so.
You are clueless. Your own link proved you wrong. You are now trying to exclude part of the actual federal budget to cook the books. It's not working, and has never worked for any of the other bitter, blinkered right wing revisionists who have tried it.
Bush inherited a surplus measured in the hundreds of the billions of dollars... and then he frittered it away. That is the sad history.
My welcome what?
Okay, let's go with your accounting.
Taking money from the Trust Funds for programs that liberals and democrats claim should never be touched is tantamount to what? Total and utter hypocrisy.
I'm not moving goal posts like your side loves to do. I'm adding links that back up exactly what I said in the first place. The only General Government surplus was in 2000 and it was tiny.
You don't want to be a total hypocrite do you? Well then pay for the programs you tout as "progressive" achievements. If you don't want to pay for them then stop trying to use them as talking points and as vote gathering schemes.
As described above, surpluses that occur prior to 2016 are “loaned” to the General Fund and accumulate, with interest, reserve spending authority for the trust fund. The reserve spending authority represents an obligation for the General Fund. Beginning in 2015, Social Security will start using interest credits to meet full benefit obligations. The Government will need to raise taxes, reduce benefits, increase borrowing from the public, and/or cut spending for other programs to meet its obligations to the trust fund. By 2037, the trust fund reserves (and thus reserve spending authority) are projected to be exhausted. Even if a trust fund's assets are exhausted, however, tax income will continue to flow into the fund. Present tax rates would be sufficient to pay 78 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2037 and 75 percent of scheduled benefits in 2084.
Take note that this is the 2010 Financial Report and things have gotten worse since then. The government is simply borrowing money from itself to fund the lifestyles of Americans and it looks like this:
As H.L. Mencken wrote, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Your proposal here is a perfect example.
The liberal plan of huge tax increases and gouging only the middle class is what is simply wrong.
Are we not all in this together? Shouldn't the unproductive also be included if belt tightening must be done? No one is really stupid enough to believe a handful of wealthy people can really support all the big spending being done and pay for everything the large and growing welfare dependent class wants and needs.
Whole ineffective federal programs like the Education department could be given the axe and it would only benefit this nation.
A compromise would mean BOTH sides give up something. The liberals would agree to the same amount of spending cuts that the GOP agrees to in tax increases. Dollar for dollar would be a good compromise as long as it's not just the middle class getting reamed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
