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. 

30 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

"tax me harder daddy government"

lmao, I don't know why I spend time trying to talk to Fing trolls who prattle on about how much more fiscally responsible the dems are. This place is amazing.  

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

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. 

Tells us more how one party unapologetically wants to expand the government  😂😂😂😂😂

57 minutes ago, Kz! said:

If he re-implements sane border policies and actually gets a full wall this time

The few miles of wall he built the last time fell down in a stiff breeze, but sure, go with that. 

Can't say I'm surprised that you'd pivot to immigration since you're well aware all of Trump's other proposals are big government tax and spend.

Quote

Then he can turn his attention to reining in entitlements.

  Sometimes I wonder if you're a parody account.

Well, shame on me for trying to hold any sort of conversation with a low-IQ incel troll living in his mama's basement.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

Well, shame on me for trying to hold any sort of conversation with a low-IQ incel troll living in his mama's basement.

Seriously dude.

You: 17 paragraph post detailing spending policies through the years.

Kz: Riot Kitchen!

At this point you have to know how it'll go.

Much easier to just call him retarded and trash his rapist messiah in the process.

15 minutes ago, Kz! said:

lmao, I don't know why I spend time trying to talk to Fing trolls who prattle on about how much more fiscally responsible the dems are. This place is amazing.  

Because you're a socially awkward loner with no meaningul human interaction in your personal life, so you end up having to beg strangers on the internet to make fun of you.

47 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Seriously dude.

You: 17 paragraph post detailing spending policies through the years.

Kz: Riot Kitchen!

At this point you have to know how it'll go.

Much easier to just call him retarded and trash his rapist messiah in the process.

I don't mind the thought exercise. 

I should just refrain from directing them against autists.

If you actually wanted to tackle debt and deficits, the first step would be to broaden the tax base. Voting for more and more government largesse is easy and a winning platform when the majority of people pay zero in income taxes (and most actually are getting rebates, credits, etc.). Raising tax rates is rather meaningless given our insane tax code because so few people pay into the system, and only ~10% are net contributors (paying more than they take in). Every Democrat that whines about the rich not paying their fair share points to some European country with higher marginal rates, but they ignore that in those countries everyone pays something. The US has the most progressive income tax system in the developed world when accounting for who actually pays the taxes, even if you adjust for income inequality. If everyone is actually paying into the system, the populace will get more fiscal restraint.

Beyond that, you need to deal with entitlements or this isn't a serious discussion. I'd eliminate all of them tomorrow, but that's not happening. So here's what could, maybe, be done:

Social Security -- raise the retirement age to the low to mid 70s. Get rid of a lot of the disability payments and focus only on retirement payments. Consider means testing.

Medicare -- reduce coverage to more of a basic level and make more expensive treatments private responsibility. Increase the age to the same as SS. 

Medicaid -- this is one we COULD eliminate, because the senior voting block doesn't care. If not, drastically reduce benefits to the bare minimum. 

Obamacare -- just end it already

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

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. 

The debt level is less of a problem for us than anyone else in the world thanks to our status as the reserve currency. There is a natural demand for dollars and treasuries that is built into the entire financial system, so we can always find buyers for our debt. But this is why something like NATO, or Ukraine, is actually important. The post WW2 global structure built upon US dominance benefits us immensely, but it came with responsibilities to promote global stability. 

2 hours 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 ****.  

KZ is the dumbest moron poster on the EMB since it's existence. And everyone knows it. His level of stupidty is un-rivaled. That's why he gets owned on the EMB nearly every day. What a waste of sperm. He doesn't have the brain power to run around the inside ring of cheerio. He has more important things to do like go March White Supremacists and tell us Jews will not replace us. That's what he supports. He fits right in with the Uneducated White Male Maga Supporters. 

whoa 

 

Biden does it again.  Promises made, promises kept.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/04/politics/biden-student-loan-debt-forgiveness/index.html

3 hours ago, Kz! said:

lmao, I don't know why I spend time trying to talk to Fing trolls who prattle on about how much more fiscally responsible the dems are. This place is amazing.  

No one is arguing they are more fiscally responsible, just that the GOP isn’t any better. But go ahead and keep making excuses for the GOP. 

46 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

No one is arguing they are more fiscally responsible, just that the GOP isn’t any better. But go ahead and keep making excuses for the GOP. 

He's just like TEW, who blames immigration all on Dems and the GOP gets zero blame. Kz blames Dems for spending and spares the GOP as if they are pure.

27 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

He's just like TEW, who blames immigration all on Dems and the GOP gets zero blame. Kz blames Dems for spending and spares the GOP as if they are pure.

They both won’t be happy until we have the Great Wall of China around the entire country and not allow anyone to come here, unless they’re white of course. And not that dirty Southern Europe white either, only WASPS need apply. 

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Because you're a socially awkward loner with no meaningul human interaction in your personal life, so you end up having to beg strangers on the internet to make fun of you.

lmao coming from the manlet who spends most of the day in here farming likes by acting like a belligerent ass to anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. Oh, and you have scabies of the face so that your outward appearance mirrors your personality more succinctly. 

4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Well, shame on me for trying to hold any sort of conversation with a low-IQ incel troll living in his mama's basement.

I know, you had some really profound solutions, like we should want the federal government to tax us more. Oh, and this banger:

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

As far as medicare/medicaid, I have no solutions because I have not researched it.

We'll be waiting with bated breath for you to research and solve the medicaid problem, riot.  

1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said:

No one is arguing they are more fiscally responsible, just that the GOP isn’t any better. But go ahead and keep making excuses for the GOP. 

So your argument is that they are 100% the exactly the same on fiscal responsibility with zero differences between the two. I mean, I know you have a childlike brain and you can't stand watching dems be criticized, but no, there are degrees to this, and dems are comparably much worse. 

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

by acting like a belligerent ass to anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders