The reason we cannot now tax our way out of debt is that Congress is incapable of controlling spending.
If we increased tax revenue Congress would simply spend the money on new pork projects.

First, cut spending by 30% across the board.
Second, veto any budget or spending bill that isn't balanced.
Third, any new projects must include a funding source.
Until the debt is paid down new funding sources must be used to lower the debt.

 

Your argument is proof that figures never lie, but liars figure.
Your endless blaming of conservatives for the debt is tiresome and inaccurate.
The debt has been created by Congress spending more than revenue can cover.
Both sides are to blame.
Both sides have to fix it.
Pointing fingers is a useless exercise that does not reduce the debt by a single penny.

If you want your arguments to be considered you need to stop with the political bullshit and acknowledge that the debt can only be paid down with a unified congressional effort. Willing to bet you are incapable of presenting a solution without in some way mentioning or blaming conservatives, the RNC, or Trump. Ditto despicables.

 

I have already demonstrated that when the top tax rate never got below 70%, and was often much higher, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined to 32%. Do I need to post my links that prove that again? It is tiresome for me to keep trying to push facts into the closed and narrow minds of my detractors.

As long as the United States retains a democratic government there is no way what you recommend will be adopted. I have demonstrated that the American people want more government spending, paid for by high taxes of upper income groups.

 

OK, how about I give you something else to explain....

Why is it that Democrats like yourself claim the "rich' should pay more taxes and such?

However, it seems that ever time the Democrats are in control of Congress or the White House, they never seem to make good on any of that "tax the rich" rhetoric.

No Democrats write or sponsor any bills or legislation that would raise taxes on the so called rich.

Can you show me any evidence of any Democrat in Congress that has authored a bill to raise taxes on the rich during biden's presidency or and other during the time of any other Democrat administration in the last 30 years?

 

Go ahead.
As Shooter has said before, all you prove is that figures never lie, but liars figure.
It's tiresome to keep going over the same old rhetoric with you.
Find some new material, won't you?
The fundamental problem is that we continue to allow Congress to spend beyond our revenue stream.
As in $35.37 TRILLION and growing at an unsustainable rate.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)

 

The truth does not change. Unfortunately, your misconceptions do not change either. What have I said about the national debt that is not true?

 

Shooter's "misconceptions" are not.
Shooter has no interest in following you down your rabbit hole to debate the debt. Your socialist opinions about the need for a large, expensive, inefficient, corrupt government runs counter to all that has made America great.
Your "visceral hate for trump" is a tax on your soul that you have to deal with. Shooter will not bother to help you with it.
Your racist rantings are ignored and you are dismissed.

We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.

 

US. Military budget consume most of money. USA got to stop fucking around the world, and then in 20 years probably you may crawl outta the dhit you are in now. Brics aliance soon will stop using US dollar in international trans trade. And it ll be a final blow at US financial system. US dollar is toxic and most countries agree with it.

 

"We don't have inflation because the people are living too well. We have inflation because the government is living too well

 

So much for a balanced budget this year ...............
Speaker Johnson did his job and got a compromise on the budget from despicables.
But in doing his job all speaker Johnson did was kick the can down the road.
COME ON YOU RATS!! DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!
​

House Democrats give all-clear to Mike Johnson's bill to avert government shutdown (msn.com)
House Democrats give all-clear to Mike Johnson's bill to avert government shutdown
Story by Andrew Solender
• 21

ouse Democratic leadership is advising its members that Republicans' bill to ward off a government shutdown for three months has no dealbreakers for their side, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: It clears the way for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to rely heavily on Democratic votes to make up for likely mass defections on his side.

Driving the news: In a whip question sent to House Democrats on Monday morning, Minority Whip Katherine Clark's (D-Mass.) office said the bill "does not include any Republican poison pills."

• Clark's office also noted that it excludes the SAVE Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, but includes additional funding for the inauguration, presidential transition and the Secret Service.
• They cautioned that the bill lacks funding Democrats want for disaster aid and the Department of Veterans Affairs, but said those issues will be hashed out in the fight over annual spending bills in December.

 

Poll: Cut federal spending — but not big-ticket programs
BY JOSH BOAK AND HANNAH FINGERHUT
Published 7:32 AM PDT, March 29, 2023
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the federal budget standoff, the majority of U.S. adults are asking lawmakers to pull off the impossible: Cut the overall size of government, but also devote more money to the most popular and expensive programs.

Six in 10 U.S. adults say the government spends too much money. But majorities also favor more funding for infrastructure, health care and Social Security — the kind of commitments that would make efforts to shrink the government unworkable and politically risky ahead of the 2024 elections.

These findings from a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research show just how messy the financial tug-of-war between President Joe Biden and House Republicans could be. At stake is the full faith and credit of the federal government, which could default on its obligations unless there is a deal this summer to raise or suspend the limit on the government’s borrowing authority.

Biden this month proposed a budget that would trim deficits by nearly $3 trillion over 10 years, but his plan contains a mix of tax increases on the wealthy and new spending that led GOP lawmakers to declare it dead on arrival. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is insisting on budget talks with the White House but has not produced a plan of his own to cut deficits, which Biden has said is a prerequisite for negotiations.

Poll: Cut federal spending — but not big-ticket programs | AP News

 

New analysis suggests national debt could increase under Harris, but it would surge under Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — No one is likely to be happy with the projected higher deficits laid out in a new analysis of Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic plans.

The analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests a Harris presidency could increase the national debt over 10 years by $3.5 trillion. That’s even though the vice president’s campaign insists her proposed investments in the middle class and housing would be fully offset by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Her campaign policy guide states that Harris is “committed to fiscal responsibility — making investments that will support our economy, while paying for them and reducing the deficit at the same time.”

The same analysis says former President Trump’s ideas could heap another $7.5 trillion onto the debt and possibly as much as $15.2 trillion...

Neither candidate has meaningfully stressed budget deficit reduction in their pitch to voters. But multiple analyses show a clear difference of Harris being much more fiscally responsible than Trump.

National debt could increase under Harris, but it would surge under Trump: new report | AP News

 

For years public opinion surveys have indicated popular support for higher taxes on the rich.

poll + taxes + rich - Google Search

Tax cuts for the rich caused this problem. Tax increases on the rich can solve this probem.

 

There is little support for specific reductions in domestic spending programs, and significant support for increases in certain domestic spending programs.

 

Dog still fails to understand;
A balanced budget with an across the board 30% cut is the only hope we have of stopping the bankruptcy of America.
He still insists on playing the tired old "make the rich pay their fair share" nonsense while spewing that no one wants "their" programs cut.

Irrelevant.
To survive we must cut the budget.
Now.

We cannot tax our way out of debt.

 

Just because you do not like something does not mean that it is irrelevant.

When President Clinton raised taxes on the rich, we did tax our way out of debt, but then Bush II cut taxes for the rich, and the national debt began to rise again.

 

Get rid of the freeloaders that the Dems insist on helping (for votes not the betterment of America) and we could balance it quickly. If I am going to be taxed to help others then let it be for Americans only. Vets. And some of the homeless. Once we see a surplus then help other countries

 

Just now the federal budget is $7 TRILLION. Revenue is just under $5 TRILLION. Interest on the debt by itself totals $1TRILLION and is a bigger budget item than EVERY OTHER BUDGET excepting social security and medicare.

To increase revenue by an additional $2TRILLION amounts to an ADDITIONAL $$20,000 PER TAXPAYER each year.

Will you be paying your additional $20,000 by check or credit card?

Or are you hoping brandon will forgive your tax debt as he has student loans?

Or do you want the ILLEGAL MIGRANTS to pick up that tab for you?

 

What gets me is the government expects you to pay what you owe yet the they can do these continuing resolutions to keep from addressing the need to cut the fat from some programs. Neither party is innocent on this. The reason they don’t is they will piss off some constituents and may be replaced in office. Will stop here as there are so many tangents I could run off on