1 hour ago, Kz! said:

I've always cared about debt/deficit spending. It's why I absolutely despise every scumbag in DC and am happy to vote for political outsiders whenever possible. You're just an old, mentally and physically feeble dude who can't respond to exploding debt without saying something pointless like "you didn't care about it under Trump." Yeah, I did. I want massive cuts to the federal government. Like a complete gutting of federal spending that would have you literally crying and shaking while you sip your after-dinner ensure at 5:00 in the evening. 

Maybe fapping all over yourself when they changed the tax code so billionaires could write off their yachts wasn't such a great idea. 

• During Donald Trump’s whole presidency, the U.S. national debt increased by $8.18trillion, a percentage increase of 40.43%. This is less than Barack Obama (69.98%) and George W. Bush (105.8%). However, Donald Trump was in office for only 4 years compared to 8 years for both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

2 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Do you always buy things based on the sales pitch instead of the actual product?

If one product is explicitly telling me they want to expand the federal government, increase handouts, and raise taxes, I'll probably purchase the other one. 

https://www.self.inc/info/us-debt-by-president/

2 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

• During Donald Trump’s whole presidency, the U.S. national debt increased by $8.18trillion, a percentage increase of 40.43%. This is less than Barack Obama (69.98%) and George W. Bush (105.8%). However, Donald Trump was in office for only 4 years compared to 8 years for both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.During Donald Trump’s whole presidency, the U.S. national debt increased by $8.18trillion, a percentage increase of 40.43%. This is less than Barack Obama (69.98%) and George W. Bush (105.8%). However, Donald Trump was in office for only 4 years compared to 8 years for both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Yes, we are in a death spiral where each subsequent president will oversee progressively higher spending to keep unsustainable government programs afloat. 

Just now, Kz! said:

Right, this is a great example. Riot Kitchen here is arguing for the federal government to raise taxes. He wants higher taxes. Yes, he's that stupid folks. He wants a larger, more robust federal government. That's fine if that's your thing, and honestly, it's refreshing to see a liberal admit it. 

This is why you're an idiot. 

You think Washington can just "gut" Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, and solve the problems. Because that's what would have to happen. 

If they did that I wouldn't mind a bit. But they won't, because politically they can't.

Even Trump voters - hell SPECIFICALLY Trump voters - are the single biggest voting bloc that would stop it. Because they're by far the biggest current beneficiaries. 

Gut SS and there will be literal blood in the streets, and it'll be aging boomers with pitchforks. 

So you either face reality and try to plot a course that gets us though the boomer generation dying off by balancing tax increases with staged reductions in benefits from these social programs, where Gen Xers like me will (again) have to take it in the ass because of Boomer stupidity, or you get an ACTUAL revolution. 

Your simple-stupid 5th grade education level solutions simply don't work. They're DOA.

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Right, this is a great example. Riot Kitchen here is arguing for the federal government to raise taxes. He wants higher taxes. Yes, he's that stupid folks. He wants a larger, more robust federal government. That's fine if that's your thing, and honestly, it's refreshing to see a liberal admit it. 

Trump has next to no policy proposals for '24.  Just about the only thing he's proposed is a 10% tax increase and retarded MAGA eats it up. 

Trump has told us what he will do. Suspend the Constitution, Declare Martial Law. Execute his politcal enemies and shut down the media while expanding executive power to allow him to do whatever he wants including pardoning himself. 

9 minutes ago, Kz! said:

If one product is explicitly telling me they want to expand the federal government, increase handouts, and raise taxes, I'll probably purchase the other one. 

Except it’s one party telling you it’s the other party that wants to expand the federal government, increase handouts and raise taxes. Then after you vote for them, yet again… the party you voted for tried to overturn an election, mailed checks to everyone with their name on it, ran the debt up even further.

So the sales pitch got you and you’re too dumb to stop buying it.

3 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Trump has told us what he will do. Suspend the Constitution, Declare Martial Law. Execute his politcal enemies and shut down the media while expanding executive power to allow him to do whatever he wants including pardoning himself. 

Exactly.  And, on top of it, he wants to increase taxes on everything by 10% and send inflation soaring.  And Republicans are all on board. 

In 2024, if you really care about reigning in the national debt, you should definitely vote for the guy who says things like this:

"As you know, the last eight years, [the federal government] borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country,” Trump said. "So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value.”

...

"I am the king of debt,” he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it.”

"I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” . "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can’t lose.”

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This is why you're an idiot. 

You think Washington can just "gut" Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, and solve the problems. Because that's what would have to happen. 

If they did that I wouldn't mind a bit. But they won't, because politically they can't.

Even Trump voters - hell SPECIFICALLY Trump voters - are the single biggest voting bloc that would stop it. Because they're by far the biggest current beneficiaries. 

Gut SS and there will be literal blood in the streets, and it'll be aging boomers with pitchforks. 

So you either face reality and try to plot a course that gets us though the boomer generation dying off by balancing tax increases with staged reductions in benefits from these social programs, where Gen Xers like me will (again) have to take it in the ass because of Boomer stupidity, or you get an ACTUAL revolution. 

Your simple-stupid 5th grade education level solutions simply don't work. They're DOA.

Yeah, we're in agreement, riot. Neither party will touch it because it's political suicide. So as a baseline, we're stuck with the current free gibs that already exist either way. The only option is to vote for the one party who doesn't want to introduce more free gibs. This would mean voting against democrats who are explicitly in favor of more free gibs and a bigger federal government. 

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Trump has next to no policy proposals for '24.  Just about the only thing he's proposed is a 10% tax increase and retarded MAGA eats it up. 

If he re-implements sane border policies and actually gets a full wall this time, it'll at least be a step above inviting in millions of illegals and giving them government handouts which is the current policy. Then he can turn his attention to reining in entitlements.

5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Trump has told us what he will do. Suspend the Constitution, Declare Martial Law. Execute his politcal enemies and shut down the media while expanding executive power to allow him to do whatever he wants including pardoning himself. 

Did he really say he would do that? Holy sheet, I didn't think it was possible for me to like him more. 

3 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Except it’s one party telling you it’s the other party that wants to expand the federal government, increase handouts and raise taxes. Then after you vote for them, yet again… the party you voted for tried to overturn an election, mailed checks to everyone with their name on it, ran the debt up even further.

So the sales pitch got you and you’re too dumb to stop buying it.

Again, we're not children. We know which party will unapologetically grow the federal government. They explicitly state it to entice voters. Have to go with option two, moron. 

so for years, this dude - call him Washington - was spending more than he made. he can do so for a while because he's seen as a gold standard, always pays his debts (eventually), and is a robust producer. so outsiders give him money, and he pays them back to cover the shortfalls at pretty friendly rates.

these rates are SO friendly, that one side of his split brain gets the idea that deficits don't matter. something something, "Reagan proved that". 

the left side of the split brain says "I like spending this money because I appreciate the stuff, but we should be bringing in more money"

the right side says "no way, if we do that we'll be tiring ourselves out working. but I also like this stuff, and if I start thinking about reducing the stuff I'm buying my guts get all uppity"

so for a while this goes on. then the right side of the brain thinks "man, I'm still working kinda hard. I don't really need to make this much, I should cut back". the left side thinks "you're nuts! we need more cash, not less."

but the right brain can only say "if I bring in my money my guts are gonna get all uppity. I can't have that. I'm going to reduce income."

and so it goes. 

the left side starts to take control and says "we need more income to cover these bills" ... the right revolts and says "IF YOU MAKE ME TAKE MORE INCOME I'LL THROW UP ALL OVER YOUR FACE. but while maybe we can do without the odd dinner out there's no way in hell I'm giving up my diamond club healthcare plan or platinum pension, MY GUTS WILL REVOLT!" 

the stupid guts then decide it's true we're working too hard, and while we have to have our diamond and platinum club benefits, we also need to cut back further.

and so it goes.

now, which side of the brain is the stupidest? 

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

unapologetically grow the federal government.

Yet you are in here unapologetically making excuses when the GOP expands the government. 

Guys, hear me out, but I'm starting to think Kz is too stupid to actually make any valid points so he's just arguing in bad faith here. Crazy, I know, but that's just my hunch so far.

13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

In 2024, if you really care about reigning in the national debt, you should definitely vote for the guy who says things like this:

"As you know, the last eight years, [the federal government] borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country,” Trump said. "So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value.”

...

"I am the king of debt,” he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it.”

"I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” . "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can’t lose.”

90th percentile IQ right there. 

12 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yeah, we're in agreement, riot. Neither party will touch it because it's political suicide. So as a baseline, we're stuck with the current free gibs that already exist either way. The only option is to vote for the one party who doesn't want to introduce more free gibs. This would mean voting against democrats who are explicitly in favor of more free gibs and a bigger federal government. 

Yeah, but your dumb ass won't acknowledge that the 'free gibs' that we're already on the hook for can't be paid for at current tax levels. 

SS should be indexed to life expectancy and balanced so that no matter what, there are at least say 5 SS contributors for every 1 SS recipient. I haven't done the exact math, but say 5-1 is correct. if that means, among the current population, the age has to be set to 72 then so be it. them's the breaks. and if that has to be phased in over a decade to give older workers time to accommodate, ok fine. but short of killing SS entirely, which I don't see as politically feasible right now, that to me is the only approach that ensure some measure of solvency moving forward. and if/when we accomplish that, maybe the country will be in a better place to have a discussion about how to further reform or eliminate/reduce SS.

As far as medicare/medicaid, I have no solutions because I have not researched it. But those are huge issues. Given there is no political appetite to eliminate them from any party, the only way I see through to managing the costs is things like what Biden has done - give them the ability to negotiate directly with providers. He's done so with pharmas. I don't know about the healthcare providers. Not my space, nor have I researched it as I said. But the direction it appears to head is towards some kind of single-payer system, which is not going to fly with a large portion of the right. 

These are complex problems. 5th grade education level solutions are never going to go anywhere. It's stupid to even mention them. 

The only element I've read about that seems to ring true is moving pharma to the Singapore model. Currently clinical trials in the US (and the EU, which has some regulatory harmony with the US IIRC) are quite onerous. The Singapore model basically comes down to: prove that your drug is not dangerous. You don't have to prove efficacy for any particular ailment, you simply have to prove that it's not dangerous at documented dosage levels. Then let the market decide what is and is not working. Obviously there is still guidance from pharmas for what ailments particular drugs are effective treating, but the role of government here should be reduced to that of ensuring as best it can the public safety - not deciding which drugs are effective for particular conditions or ailments. 

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yeah, but your dumb ass won't acknowledge that the 'free gibs' that we're already on the hook for can't be paid for at current tax levels. 

SS should be indexed to life expectancy and balanced so that no matter what, there are at least say 5 SS contributors for every 1 SS recipient. I haven't done the exact math, but say 5-1 is correct. if that means, among the current population, the age has to be set to 72 then so be it. them's the breaks. and if that has to be phased in over a decade to give older workers time to accommodate, ok fine. but short of killing SS entirely, which I don't see as politically feasible right now, that to me is the only approach that ensure some measure of solvency moving forward. and if/when we accomplish that, maybe the country will be in a better place to have a discussion about how to further reform or eliminate/reduce SS.

As far as medicare/medicaid, I have no solutions because I have not researched it. But those are huge issues. Given there is no political appetite to eliminate them from any party, the only way I see through to managing the costs is things like what Biden has done - give them the ability to negotiate directly with providers. He's done so with pharmas. I don't know about the healthcare providers. Not my space, nor have I researched it as I said. But the direction it appears to head is towards some kind of single-payer system, which is not going to fly with a large portion of the right. 

These are complex problems. 5th grade education level solutions are never going to go anywhere. It's stupid to even mention them. 

The only element I've read about that seems to ring true is moving pharma to the Singapore model. Currently clinical trials in the US (and the EU, which has some regulatory harmony with the US IIRC) are quite onerous. The Singapore model basically comes down to: prove that your drug is not dangerous. You don't have to prove efficacy for any particular ailment, you simply have to prove that it's not dangerous at documented dosage levels. Then let the market decide what is and is not working. Obviously there is still guidance from pharmas for what ailments particular drugs are effective treating, but the role of government here should be reduced to that of ensuring as best it can the public safety - not deciding which drugs are effective for particular conditions or ailments. 

And your dumb ass wants the federal government to tax you more. You are jsdarkstar/tnt4philly levels of stupid. It's hard to even put into words how stupid you have to be to type something like that. But yeah, continue supporting higher federal taxes and voting for democrats so they can create more free gibs on top of the ones we can't afford already. Fing ****.  

Just now, Kz! said:

And your dumb ass wants the federal government to tax you more. You are jsdarkstar/tnt4philly levels of stupid. It's hard to even put into words how stupid you have to be to type something like that. But yeah, continue supporting higher federal taxes and voting for democrats so they can create more free gibs on top of the ones we can't afford already. Fing ****.  

no, I don't WANT to be taxed more. but I'm not a f***ing child either. 

if the past 20 years isn't enough to convince you that reducing taxes has zero impact on spending, I don't know what to tell you.

an increasingly larger percentage of budget outlays every year are from mandatory spending programs. and interest on the national debt is considered part of discretionary spending, but you might as well put that in mandatory as well unless you want to completely tank the US economy and government. 

you're a child who thinks you can wave a magic wand to get us to solvency. the reality is that any solution that reigns in the deficit and starts monetizing the debt we have over time (because there's no way anything approaching a surplus will happen) is going to have to include tax reform which results in more revenue. and likely that revenue is going to have to come from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, because we already have a highly progressive tax structure that soaks the rich - whether the normies of the world want to believe it or not.

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

And your dumb ass wants the federal government to tax you more. You are jsdarkstar/tnt4philly levels of stupid. It's hard to even put into words how stupid you have to be to type something like that. But yeah, continue supporting higher federal taxes and voting for democrats so they can create more free gibs on top of the ones we can't afford already. Fing ****.  

Where do you think the money to build your wall will come from? Let’s pretend for a moment that it would actually work. Do you think the government would need to be expanded to militarize the border? Stop pretending that you don’t want to grow the government or reduce spending. 

50 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yes, we are in a death spiral where each subsequent president will oversee progressively higher spending to keep unsustainable government programs afloat. 

It’s only a death spiral if you continue to increase spending while cutting revenue. Anyone intelligent enough to balance a bank account knows we need to cut spending while keeping revenue up to cover the bills. If you had the ability to see through a sales pitch you would see that republicans prefer enriching themselves short term with tax cuts and a complete disregard for anything long term. It’s almost like their goal is to completely wreck, default and shut down the government because they know without a doubt people like you will buy that it was the democrats fault. 
 

And they aren’t wrong, you prove it with every post.

11 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

It’s only a death spiral if you continue to increase spending while cutting revenue. Anyone intelligent enough to balance a bank account knows we need to cut spending while keeping revenue up to cover the bills. If you had the ability to see through a sales pitch you would see that republicans prefer enriching themselves short term with tax cuts and a complete disregard for anything long term. It’s almost like their goal is to completely wreck, default and shut down the government because they know without a doubt people like you will buy that it was the democrats fault. 
 

And they aren’t wrong, you prove it with every post.

"starve the beast will work" 

 

23 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Where do you think the money to build your wall will come from? Let’s pretend for a moment that it would actually work. Do you think the government would need to be expanded to militarize the border? Stop pretending that you don’t want to grow the government or reduce spending. 

A wall would save us a lot of money in the long run, yes. And for only a small fraction of the price we've sent to Ukraine. We're talking about trillions and trillions in government debt, here. You bringing up the pittance that would be a border wall shows just how far out of your element you are in this conversation, feeble. Move along. 

18 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

It’s only a death spiral if you continue to increase spending while cutting revenue. Anyone intelligent enough to balance a bank account knows we need to cut spending while keeping revenue up to cover the bills. If you had the ability to see through a sales pitch you would see that republicans prefer enriching themselves short term with tax cuts and a complete disregard for anything long term. It’s almost like their goal is to completely wreck, default and shut down the government because they know without a doubt people like you will buy that it was the democrats fault. 
 

And they aren’t wrong, you prove it with every post.

And there's literally no way the democrats would ever in a million years consider cutting spending in any way. Good god, you're an idiot.  

I don't mean to trivialize the debt, but it's not the crises that republicans make it out to be when a democrat occupies the white house (we've established that they couldn't care less about it when we have a republican administration). Less than a quarter of our debt is owned by other countries. The rest is the fed playing god with the world economy (borrowing from ourselves) and domestic creditors. So when I hear republicans wring their hands and cry "It's not sustainable", it actually most certainly is. The entire world economy is based on it. 

The greater crises is the republicans playing chicken with it, and threatening to default.