Wage inceases
- Thread starter 79eer
- Start date
Sure, in theory that is true but start cutting programs and saving money and see what happens. It is pretty funny to watch die hard libs like bama complain about spending when they kept their mouth shut about it for 8 years of Obama. Do you think Trumps supporters are Ok with the spending? He took more **** for signing the budget than anything else. Its not like I have a better choice to vote for and the Congress is really the culprit when it comes to good and bad budgets.
I don't mean to pick on you BamaEER but this is just more evidence of economic illiteracy that the Left is afflicted with.
An economy at full employment doesn't mean wages can't increase or that there are no more workers to hire. Under that dynamic people move into better paying positions become better skilled or companies develop new and better products that produce more profits and therefore generate more wealth for both their investors and workers.
Consumers also have more purchasing power which leads to greater demand for products and services. That drives the need for sustained labor at higher wages which causes economic expansion which drives increased revenues to the treasury.
Currently this economy is generating excess of 3 trillion dollars of revenue to the treasury. It takes someone not used to handling that much money on a daily basis to determine it's not enough for whatever you want to spend it on!
We do NOT have a revenue problem in this country we have a spending problem. And an economy at full employment is not a problem for the Government it is the solution for it as long as we demand fiscal accountability.
I agree. GOP has WH, senate, house and Biff's budget is 10% higher than Obama's biggest previously. So much for that libtard spending problem theory.
you sure as hell weren't worried about the deficit when Dumbo was robbing us blind and giving it to the iranians.....my my what a change of political parties will do.........[banana][banana][banana][banana][banana]..the dance continues
I'm actually sympathetic to their calls for deficit-reduction. I just see them as all hat and no cattle.
An economy growing at close to 4% GDP can absorb a budget much bigger than Obama's as long as we don't spend more than what we take in.
Here is something I want you and the rest of the Left to always remember. Government doesn't generate its own revenue, it comes from an expanding economy in the private sector. So we need to grow the private sector and not the Government. The smaller and less intrusive Government is the larger and more expansive the economy grows.
So a growing economy with Government fiscal accountability will always mean more revenue to spend on whatever we need to spend it on!
It's the exact opposite with you Leftists. You don't think anything happens in the economy unless the Government handles the money first. But remember what I said, Government does not generate its own revenue. They tried that with Socialism and it's been a miserable failure wherever it's been run without a vibrant private sector to feed it.
Last edited:
No one was saying he was a deficit hawk. You extrapolate comments made into something that you can easily argue against. The deficit (annual amount in the red) decreased each year of the Obama presidency. The deficit each year was greater than zero, so the debt increased. No one is arguing that it didn't increase a lot under Obama. The arguments have been that we are in a booming economy right now. The deficit in 2017 was greater than the prior 3 years' deficits (individually), and the estimated deficit for this year is greater than each since 2012.
If the deficit, and overall debt can't be addressed while the economy is good, then we are in for some big trouble when the economy turns south. We aren't projected to hit the trillion dollar level over the next few years, but we are projected to be within a gnat's breath of that level - with good economic predictors.
I keep seeing people claim that the left only cares about the deficit when the right is in the White House. The same is true of the right. The solution isn't popular. You need to have enough tax revenue to run a surplus now. Use that to pay down the debt.
Also, contrary to popular belief, a lot of our debt is financed by US banks. If they are lending close to a trillion dollars to the government, what does that mean for other people who are looking to borrow to build or expand businesses? That's taking capital away from economic growth potential.
I don't think you're wrong with how to go about reducing spending. I think that's part of the process. While I think Congress also bears a lot of the blame here, ultimately it's the voters who are to blame. Watch someone talk about reworking social security and see how long they last in office. The voters as a whole want a lot of things, and they don't want to pay for them. Congress reflects that. The folks on the right fight the hardest to control what people have to pay to support the whole enchilada, and the folks on the left fight hard to add to the plate. Since neither side wants to work with the other, we end up with a bigger meal and a smaller check. That's what passes for compromise these days. The right compromise is for us to leave a bigger tip and order off the lunch menu.
And now I'm hungry.
I disagree with your premise about what the primary drivers are behind our debt but I accept that Republicans are now in charge and this is the best time during an expanding economy to get deficit spending under control.
I think this next election cycle is probably the most important in the country's history because without a veto-proof or filibuster-proof Congress there is not much the President or Republicans can do.
Why? Because Democrats oppose them at every step of the way to reduce expanded Government spending! If Trump gets a Congress that has enough members to okay the reduced budgets he is likely to send in the next few years I think as long as we continue to expand the economy we will begin to make a dent on the deficits and then hopefully we can get onto entitlement reforms that will help us get a handle on the debt. Democrats have been reluctant to support entitlement reforms also that is why Trump needs a veto-proof majority of a party that is in support of his agenda to reduce all of the spending and reform entitlements.
Without an expanding economy reduced discretionary spending as well as entitlement reforms we will never begin to wrestle this debt monster to the ground.
Fact is we need all three as well as a President and Congress who are on the same page.
Is that a definition of Tax and Spend Democrats? Going to borrow first then tax to get funds to pay interest on the borrowing.
Yes it is as it's currently set up and it is one of the worst retirement Insurance programs anyone could invest in.
That being said we have an obligation to pay those who spent their lives working paying into it but I would definitely support reforms that begin to gradually wean the current younger workforce off of it and onto personal or individual retirement accounts that move with them throughout their careers.
SS should be both means-tested and tax-free for those who are eligible for all benefits but I also think the funding should be allocated according to only what is required to pay for those people who truly need it and let others who either want to opt out or don't need it to opt out.
Last edited:
Damn that Trump, Conspiring to increase the economy, reduce tax's and force people to go to work and feed the economy. I wish the Dums had produced a candidate so we don't have a good economy...
All of these Leftists taking credit for Obama's reduced deficits never mentioned it was Republicans in Congress (put there by voters to reign in Obama's ACA spending, and other deficit increasing gimmicks) who forced him to agree to sequestration cuts since Democrats refused to cut any other way. The deal was dollar for dollar cuts in both discretionary and Military spending to hit certain pre-designated targets. Democrats hated it (Republicans did too because it gutted the Armed Forces) but it's not like Obama willingly agreed to these cuts.
Do you suppose that's why Leftists never mentioned them in their Defense of Obama as a deficit slashing budget managing Maestro?
Sequestration: Everything you need to know
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ed-to-know-in-one-faq/?utm_term=.7ef9ba1d8ba3
I remember when sequestration was Obama's fault. Now the Republicans forced him into it to reduce the deficit. Pick a story.
Yep Government bank balance works like our personal bank balance, spend more than you bring in and you have a deficit , increase spending and the deficit increases...
This is the problem with re-electing the same people as our representatives each election cycle. Most of our reps continue to want to spend more than government brings in thus raising the deficit. I would prefer the deficit decrease not lowering the percentage of deficit increases...
As I remember it he refused to go along with the spending cuts in the social programs unless the military was included. He also wanted the military cuts to be 2 to 1against the discretionary cuts. So that's when they came up with the formulas to cut everything across the board equally.