• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Yeah, but I won't be here': Trump lays bare the GOP's hypocritical double standard around mounting


That (bolded above) assertion is simply not so - if you cut 100% of defense spending (which, of course, is not possible) then you would still have a federal deficit. Also true is that cutting 100% of non-defense, discretionary spending would still leave a federal deficit. Using individual federal income tax (rate?) increases would require about a 40% increase to erase the federal deficit - that too is simply not going to happen.
 

You're beating a straw man. Here's the original comment:

"You cant reduce the deficit without reducing the spending on social security and medicare/Medicaid and welfare."

That's false. You can reduce the deficit, make the total smaller than it would have been, by simply undoing the last GOP tax cuts. The tax cuts increased deficits and so can be reduced by undoing the changes.

If the assertion was about ELIMINATING the deficit, I'd have responded differently, but obviously one part of any effort to ELIMINATE the deficit will be tax increases, but also likely entitlement cuts and cuts across the government.
 

Of course, it's possible to reduce the federal deficit but that would come at a (huge?) political price. So long as congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% by producing a 'budget' that spends more than they dare ask for in taxation then doing so will remain the 'best' option.

Folks should remember that Trump ran based on spending more and taxing less - a 100% guarantee of deficit spending. The republicants constantly talk about cutting "wasteful" spending to "balance the budget" yet refuse to identify specific proposed cuts sufficient to do so because it is simply politically impossible - obviously, such cuts would have to be at the entire program, agency or department level to have any significant impact.

Nonsense like "across the board" spending cuts (with carefully carved out exceptions, of course) are simply talking points - see sequestration. The reason that these "penny plans" (1% cuts) or "nickel plans" (5% cuts) are doomed to fail is that the defict is now about 20% of total federal spending.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OBRA 1993 which got zero GOP votes and was signed by Clinton removed the Medicare cap and increased the maximum amount of SS subject to tax from 50% to 85%.
Click to expand...
So, in 25 years - ONCE. I rest my case.
 
Bullseye said:
So, in 25 years - ONCE. I rest my case.
Click to expand...



And previous to that, Reagan increased FICA tax rates nearly every year, and Congress/Obama starting in 2013 imposed an additional Medicare tax of .9% on earnings over $200,000.
 

What about the $5 trillion war expenses of Afghanistan and Iraq?
/
 
Reducing the federal deficit still causes the total debt to increase. The US is spending more than the revenue it brings in. A balanced budget would be a start. Yet, Congress seems budget by Continue Resolution. Someday, maybe the President and Congress can agree to address the financial mess that has occurred over decades. Won't happen overnight, but this continue deficit spending adding to the debt is not healthy.
 
DaveFagan said:
What about the $5 trillion war expenses of Afghanistan and Iraq?
/
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. I've said in several posts that Bush II took office, and the GOP cut taxes twice, started two wars, passed a brand new drug entitlement, and otherwise increased spending across the board, which is all true. I was addressing a more narrow topic in what you quoted, which was that tax revenues at the top of a once in generations level bubble are not in fact sustainable, and were not sustained. It in fact took until 2013 to sustainably reach revenues we last saw at the end of the Clinton administration.
 
JasperL said:


And previous to that, Reagan increased FICA tax rates nearly every year, and Congress/Obama starting in 2013 imposed an additional Medicare tax of .9% on earnings over $200,000.
Click to expand...
Did Reagan do that, or did Congress? Congress/Obama? Congress passed and Obama signed?
 
JasperL said:
Click to expand...
You do realize that not everything that happens during a President's term is due to his single-handed efforts, right? He just waves his hand and FICA rates go up? While it's true FICA has changed many times, mostly because of SS/Medicare's faulty business models.
 

Correct. If there is some confusion on your part how a bill (e.g. to raise FICA rates or raise the wage cap) becomes a law, the short cartoon explains it nicely. eace
 
JasperL said:
Correct. If there is some confusion on your part how a bill (e.g. to raise FICA rates or raise the wage cap) becomes a law, the short cartoon explains it nicely. eace
Click to expand...
No confusion at all. In fact you just demonstrated my point all along. Saying "Reagan (or whoever) raised FICA" is disingenuous, at best. Presidents can, and frequently do campaign on "Saving Social Security or Medicare" but the nuts and bolts are done in the Senate and the House who follow your School House Rock vid.
 

Of course, but you're just moving goal posts around because every time you assert something on this thread it's proved wrong. You asked what role Congress or the President had in raising payroll taxes and I responded, referencing the many "FICA" tax rate increases DURING Reagan's era, the tax increases by expanding caps while Clinton was President, and rate increases on upper income people while Obama was President.

And the reality is people talk about the "Reagan" tax cuts, not the Democratic House and Republican Senate tax cuts of 1981. Same with the "Bush" tax cuts or the "Clinton" tax increases. That's how we discuss these things, it's short hand, but everyone knows how budgets work, that they in fact go through Congress first.
 
 
Bullseye said:
First off you're lying about my question which was:
Click to expand...

Your question wasn't a good one because EVERY bill is passed by the House, the Senate, then signed by POTUS. Every one, including all the changes to FICA rates and limits.




Sure, Reagan was instrumental in getting his tax cuts through, and Clinton was instrumental in getting the surplus producing tax increases through. What you guys do is give credit to Reagan and ignore the Democratic House that passed those "Reagan" tax cuts when it's good, and then give the GOP Congress credit for the Clinton-era surplus, while of course blaming Clinton as a tax-raisin liberal stealin our hard earned money! in all other contexts. It's funny and intellectually dishonest... It's also one reason why I left the GOP.

And you're just wrong about Reagan's role in the FICA tax increases. He appointed a commission to study the issue, named Greenspan to it, and worked with Tip O'Neill on that deal and lauded it when it was completed. So he actively supported the goals and conclusion of this commission, and actively supported the legislation, which were tax increases and reductions in benefits. Without Reagan that deal does not happen. It's just...history.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...l-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done
 
JasperL said:
Your question wasn't a good one because EVERY bill is passed by the House, the Senate, then signed by POTUS. Every one, including all the changes to FICA rates and limits.
Click to expand...
of course.




JasperL said:
Sure, Reagan was instrumental in getting his tax cuts through, and Clinton was instrumental in getting the surplus producing tax increases through.
Click to expand...
uh, not so sure on Clinton.
LOL, I have not idea where you're going with this.
So that makes ONE. There have been numerous FICA changes.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
of course.
uh, not so sure on Clinton.
LOL, I have not idea where you're going with this.
So that makes ONE. There have been numerous FICA changes.
Click to expand...

I've lost the point of this conversation. And I know there have been numerous FICA changes because you asked and I pointed out the major ones from Reagan forward to you. At any rate, we've hit the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…