TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards: Question for Tiptree

This is topic Question for Tiptree in forum Civil Debate - Politics and Other Hot Button Topics at TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.thecatsdomain.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=002057

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-08-2018, 10:14 AM:

What is your take on all this bleeping federal spending going on? How in the hell are we going to pay for it all?

Posted by ukcatfannfl (Member # 1425) on 02-08-2018, 12:10 PM:

I'm not tip but no one from your party seemed to worry about it when Obama was in power.

p.s if u want to talk to an individual you should send a private message not put it out where other people (like me) believe you think no one else is capable in answering it//

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-08-2018, 12:16 PM:

Ok then...you answer the question.

Posted by PaulCat (Member # 513) on 02-08-2018, 12:27 PM:

Why question federal spending at this point? It ain't like the deficit was zero when Trump took over. The govt will continue spending money until the end of time. I guess people don't question it until it's being spent on something they don't agree with.

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 02-08-2018, 12:51 PM:

I am very concerned with Federal spending. However, very little of it is 'discretionary'. Over 2/3 of Federal spending is shuttled to the torrent of entitlements that we are obligated to pay. Cut back on entitlements, and the budget shrinks to a reasonable level.

But, of course, cutting back on entitlements is political suicide. Everybody wants to seem compassionate with other people's money.

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 02-08-2018, 12:51 PM:

That was a short answer... I am at O'Hare airport waiting for my flight. I hope to give a better one later.

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-10-2018, 08:14 AM:

Tiptree:

quote:
I am very concerned with Federal spending. However, very little of it is 'discretionary'. Over 2/3 of Federal spending is shuttled to the torrent of entitlements that we are obligated to pay. Cut back on entitlements, and the budget shrinks to a reasonable level.

But, of course, cutting back on entitlements is political suicide. Everybody wants to seem compassionate with other people's money.

This leads to my second question...how do we pay for all the spending? If cutting back on entitlements is the answer, yet politically untouchable, where do we go?

btw: Anyone is welcome to respond...i did not intent it to be a closed conversation.

[ 02-10-2018, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: MountainMafia ]

Posted by boomdaddy (Member # 2644) on 02-11-2018, 11:48 AM:

What Our elected officials should do is slash spending and reduce the size of government.

We, as a collective nation, need military security, infrastructure, and emergency services.

What we don't need are bills that have pork projects attached to them, because of behind the scenes political deals.

There is no way to stop it, because term limits will never happen.

This not a democrat or republican issue. It is a total elected government issue, where they put power and greed before the interests of the nation.

All the agencies could start by eliminating and combining and reduce the positions at the highest levels. This will never happen. But it should.

The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay down the debt, the law makers should reduce spending and cut their spending to reduce the debt.

Nacy Pelosi made a statement that said the the tax money was the governments. It is the peoples money. She is not the only evil one if\n office, but her way of thinking that she verbalized is what all lawmakers feel and how they act, regardless of party.

The only time they will wake up is if the country goes into dire straits, and only then, will they act to do something about it. But, I suspect, they will levy a huge tax on the middle class instead of cutting government spending.

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 02-11-2018, 12:01 PM:

Boom, here is another brief airport answer. The way the law is written, the ONLY thing that the goverment MUST pay is entitlement/transfer payments, and payment on our debt. The actual essential duties of the government -- defense, treasury, state, etc. -- are 'discretionary'. And if you cut them ALL to zero, we would still run a deficit just because of entitlements.

So, the only choices are to either reduce entitlements, significantly raise taxes, or significantly grow the economy. The first one cannot happen for political reasons. So that leaves the last two. Raising taxes is the fastest way to generate more income, but it hurts the economy in the long run, thus beginning a spriral up ever-increasting tax rates to cover the lower taxable base. The latter (growing the economy) is actually enhanced by cutting taxes, but the effect is delayed. So, the long run solution causes MORE deficit spending in the short run.

So, you either pay now for long-term relief, or you take more money out of the economy today and increase the depth of the problem for the future. I prefer the long-term view, and that is what Trump's proposals are targeting. Lower taxes on both individuals and corporations will spur consumption and production, growing the economy, and raising the taxable base for future years. It will add to the debt over the next 10 years, however, and that is painful. Depending on what you consider 'government debt', it is already approaching, if not exceeding, GDP. And countries that have reached 100% of GDP in debt have had poor economic progress due to the excessive drag that debt produces on the economy.

Tough choices, but I am an optimist, and believe that we can grow our economy if the twin government burdens of taxes and excessive regulation were lightened. And growth of the economy, coupled with fiscal restrainst and discipline, is the best choice to reduce our debt.

Posted by ukcatfannfl (Member # 1425) on 02-11-2018, 01:44 PM:

Entitlements are the problem, meaning payments given without contributing. Specific welfare programs for people that do want want to work or people who illegally enter our country on the pretense of political asylum (Cuba/Jamaica or just enter for free stuff (Mexico).

Our immigration policy is the most generous policy in the world. My wife and I worked overseas in many countries and each person who apply's waits for his number to be called to permanently live in the U.S. and/or work in the U.S. not to mention the student visas. Letting millions more in illegally is killing our budget....IMO

The Democrats could care less about America - they are interested in staying in power in their home states and if it means more illegals then so be it!

[ 02-11-2018, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: ukcatfannfl ]

Posted by MountainMafia (Member # 2066) on 02-12-2018, 08:56 AM:

Tiptree:

quote:
Tough choices, but I am an optimist, and believe that we can grow our economy if the twin government burdens of taxes and excessive regulation were lightened. And growth of the economy,coupled with fiscal restrainst and discipline, is the best choice to reduce our debt.

This boat has already sailed Tiptree. Neither party apparently gives a damn any more.

Posted by Tiptree (Member # 844) on 02-12-2018, 02:16 PM:

Amen to that, MM. With the rise of GWB's "Compassionate conservatism", the parties essentially merged.

The only way to turn this ship around is by supreme court mandate. Somebody needs to sue the government for violation of almost every article of the constitution. I don't think it can possibly be argued against; our current government has a reach and size and impact unimaginable by our founders, and certainly could not be considered a "limited government". The SCOTUS could order draconian measures to change that, but I doubt any of those pansies would have the nuts to do it.

Posted by clydeh (Member # 7) on 02-12-2018, 02:49 PM:

More than fifty years ago, when the "war on poverty" was begun, my Dad said he felt as this war would break this country. I believe he was right.

Posted by Old Norm (Member # 1482) on 02-12-2018, 04:05 PM:

And now Stockton CA's new 27 year old mayor wants to try a "Guaranteed income" plan, paid for by city taxes. web page