- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So who going to pay for this, no to mention the effect on the national debt?Hillary Clinton comes up $2.2 trillion short in paying for her policy agenda, despite hiking taxes by $1.3 trillion, according to a new analysis of the Democratic nominee’s campaign platform.
The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, released a report Thursday finding Clinton’s domestic agenda would “have a dramatic effect on the federal budget.”
Rich people.
Rich people.
"Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes."
An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Tax Policy Center
The only way to pay down the debt is to inflate our way out of it. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of the facts of our economic reality. There is not enough productivity to produce the taxes necessary to "surplus" our way out of it.
by 2026 the national debt would be 26 trillion dollars.
almost impossible to pay all.
the interest on the debt that we have now along with all the social spending will consume the federal budget by 2023 or so.
Report: Hillary Clinton would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion | Fox News
So who going to pay for this, no to mention the effect on the national debt?
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.all her tax proposals hike taxes 1.3 trillion dollars. that leaves her 2.2 trillion dollars short on what she is wanting to spend.
lol.... Try again.the interest on the debt that we have now along with all the social spending will consume the federal budget by 2023 or so.
Under the conservative dream boat, Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. If anyone today raises it over 35% it's flat out USSR-level socialism. We spent 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at all, but if we spend a tiny fraction of that on American infrastructure and education it's nothing but pie-in-the-sky unicorn time.
They won't because you are paying for it!When was the last time any politician worried about paying for crap?
Rich people.American said:So who going to pay for this, no to mention the effect on the national debt?
Again I will go with the study over random internet poster.Only if we hold the economy and revenue constant to 2016 levels.
Will entitlement programs and debt consume U.S. budget in 2025? | PolitiFact VirginiaWhat does this even mean? How can two programs consume the budget, especially if we have the ability to raise additional revenues or borrow from capital markets?
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.
Under the conservative dream boat, Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. If anyone today raises it over 35% it's flat out USSR-level socialism. We spent 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at all, but if we spend a tiny fraction of that on American infrastructure and education it's nothing but pie-in-the-sky unicorn time.
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.
lol.... Try again.
Interest payments were $223 billion in 2015. Tax revenues for FY2015 were over $3.1 trillion. Interest payments were a whopping 6% of the federal budget.
Even with Trump's tax cuts, we will have no problems paying interest for a long, long, long time.
And if you were genuinely worried about paying the bills, you'd favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.
:lol:
I'll mark this down to "not a dime of increased taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year".
Again I will go with the study over random internet poster.
an Scandling, Wolf’s spokesman, said his boss was referring to a June 2011 report from the CBO detailing the agency’s latest long-term outlook on the nation’s fiscal fitness.
Tables in the report contain projections showing that by 2025, payments for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and debt interest will exceed all federal revenues going into the budget. That’s a shade different from Wolf’s statement that there won’t be any money at all to pay for additional programs since, beyond using tax revenues, the U.S. also has been known to borrow money to finance its budget.
Rich people.
"Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes."
An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Tax Policy Center
The federal government has no need to pay down the debt. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of our economic reality.The only way to pay down the debt is to inflate our way out of it. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of the facts of our economic reality.
:roll:
Yeah, so what rates did people actually pay?
And why should anyone be sending 35% or more of their salary to the government?
It's not even that high. They count as "rich" dual income families that make more than $166k.I like how earning $250,000 is considered rich. That's cute. Liberals should look at liberal hot spots like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago and ask themselves how rich 250,000 is in those areas. I think it's cute how liberals ignore the cost of living in their own backyard.
Still adds to much debt.Rich people.
"Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes."
An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Tax Policy Center
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?