Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #91 
did not read your drivel. 

Dodd/Frank/Fannie/Freddie caused the loan crises of 2008.  

When revenue to the government does down, spending should likewise go down.  

Now of course a good dem would argue that dropping spending at the same rate as revenue would worsen the recession, and that would be correct.  But spending at the government level could easily have shrank considerably after that size of a market correction, and we still would have helped the economy, not hurt it.  

Some debt made sense, maybe 2 or three years worth at 60% of what we were taking it on.  The rest is nonsense.  Spending at the levels we are now make no sense whatsoever. 

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 5,205
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist
did not read your drivel. 

Dodd/Frank/Fannie/Freddie caused the loan crises of 2008.  

When revenue to the government does down, spending should likewise go down.  

Now of course a good dem would argue that dropping spending at the same rate as revenue would worsen the recession, and that would be correct.  But spending at the government level could easily have shrank considerably after that size of a market correction, and we still would have helped the economy, not hurt it.  

Some debt made sense, maybe 2 or three years worth at 60% of what we were taking it on.  The rest is nonsense.  Spending at the levels we are now make no sense whatsoever. 


You are absolutely murdering dewey/will on this thread. Carry on.

__________________
"Dewey's attempt to return:  The biggest scandal on the UCS forum in 2017." 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #93 
It's a perspective from the Left and no doubt some on the Right will disagree.  That said, 27 years is a pretty good indicator Federal spending will go up almost every year absent some major program or Department elimination.  Telling Americans spending will change dramatically and will ultimately address our deficit (growing once again) is to fog the issue.  Additionally, to ask Americans to sacrifice their SS or Medicare because Federal revenue is being stifled with tax cuts, is beyond the pale.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
Yes, that's partly right.  The debt doubled primarily because of the revenue side of the equation.  We can blame recession, 9/11, and tax cuts for stifling Government revenue during the last 17 years.  Revenue went backwards three times during the Bush years and it started well before the recession.  Of course the Right will try to blame the Left for any recession and the Left will blame GOP for reducing tax revenue as being the prime reason.  Americans will have to ultimately decide which they believe.

Let's go back to spending first.  Take away spending for the wars, take away stimulus spending due to a recession, and add the dollars Obama requested for spending, and what you have is a Government growing spending about 4% a year.  That's normal and Americans should expect that to be the case going forward.  We have decades to use as history. 

I previously noted we grew spending since 2000 at 5.3% a year, a little high due to the previously mentioned wars and stimulus.  But not crazy high.  Other periods saw 7.8% annual growth during our defense buildup in the 80's.  There will be examples of larger than normal growth rates in any given year but 4% is going to be about the normal case.  Maybe someday the GOP eliminates a program or department and changes a one year growth but, after that, the new annual spending level will grow at about 4% again.  All they'll change is the starting number.  As I said, it's just the norm due to inflation and population growth.  Maybe a little lower or a little higher but around this number.

So it all comes back to revenue.  This constant cutting of taxes is pushing our budget further south and extending the number of years before we can grow out of this pit.  Future generations must sacrifice because of it.  What I've been sharing is my opinion as to the reason behind the constant GOP drive to give tax relief.  The goal is to short the Government in order to eliminate a program or department.  It's that simple from my perspective.  Unfortunately for future generations, the deficit from tax reductions constantly fails in its goal to end programs because these are programs Americans want.  And the vicious cycle continues.  We'll go back and forth on taxes, we might even end a program or department some day, but we'll never stop growth in spending as math has too much control in this area.  Meanwhile, future generations will see standard of living suffer due to the debt we run up during our political battles.  Hopefully someday we'll stop the borrowing in order to force an agenda. It's unfair to others particularly when we borrow money to pay for our wars.  That's downright shameful.

Edit:  A quick check shows since 1980 spending grew 5.3% annually ($.59T in 1980 to $4.2T in 2018) and 4.5% annually since 1990 ($1.25T to $4.2T in 2018).

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #94 
There is no reason we should not cut spending.
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #95 
That's a very vague statement.  Does that mean cut the $3.98T spending in FY2017 to a lower number in 2018, or cut the proposed Trump spending of $4.094T in FY2018 to a lower number than proposed?  Does that mean cut SS benefits for old people, or to cut defense spending when compared to the amount spent last year?  Does that mean cut the State Department budget?  No doubt somewhere there are year to year actual cuts that can be made but specifics are important when saying the word "cut".

Btw, are you predicting the Federal Government will spend less than $3.98T in FY2018?

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 25,104
Reply with quote  #96 
#TacoTuesday
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #97 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn

Btw, are you predicting the Federal Government will spend less than $3.98T in FY2018?

2018 is probably a loss at this point.  2019 though we could and should cut a lot. 

BTW: did you see that EPA just crossed the mark to less the half the staff they had when Trump started?   Pretty impressive.  No one died.  Net Nutrality did not kill anyone, Tax Cuts did not kill anyone, and EPA gutted has not killed anyone.  Wrong on 3 accounts.

As far s cutting off of number X or number Y it matters not.  As long as we cut.  Deficits and Debt are both bad for the chillren.

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #98 
Still vague.

The purpose of this revenue/spending debate is to illustrate what's primarily behind our rising deficits and increasing debt.  Americans are basically being told spending will be cut so fear not these tax cuts.  That just isn't true.  Spending is going to climb most every year.  Maybe 4%, maybe 4.5%, or maybe 5% but it will grow every year absent some unusual event.  History proves that will be the case.  Once this is understood by the American people, the GOP emphasis on driving down Government revenue be countered by the electorate.  However, as long as they continue to believe their tax cuts will be offset by spending cuts, something that simply isn't true, this disturbing trend to cut taxes will continue, deficits will go higher, debt will grow greater, and future generations will take a severe hit in their standard of living.  Giving tax relief to wealthy people is doing far more harm than good when it comes to the regular population.  All one can do is keep making this information known and hope more tax cuts for wealthy folks aren't right around the corner.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #99 
Oh yeah, as long as we continue to allow these tax cuts, we can expect to have downward pressure on SS, Medicare, and other much needed benefits.  It will be spun as out of control spending which isn't the case.
__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #100 
It is out of control spending.  SS was never supposed to be a 30 year retirement fund.  Government (all government) should never be 36% of GDP. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

There is no point in it.  During recession should go up a bit, but drop down to somewhere south of 28%.

Education is more efficient when handled at the state levels.  Healthcare as well.   Roads -> states.  All way more efficient than massively out of control Washington DC. 

Defense has shrunk to only 11% of our overall spend, and that is all our government should really be doing.

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #101 
I agree SS was not funded for a 30 year retirement.  We as citizens need to understand this SS rate needs to increase and our retirement age may have to be pushed back a little.  What we can't do is cut benefits or end SS after 20 years or so.

Edit:  Once you get all those cuts through which you think the American people want and get our budget to surplus, then hand out those tax cuts.  I'll support them when that happens.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 25,104
Reply with quote  #102 
I like it more when you don't support them, using your past logic dewy, when your opponent balks the most, you must be doing something right
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #103 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
I agree SS was not funded for a 30 year retirement.  We as citizens need to understand this SS rate needs to increase and our retirement age may have to be pushed back a little.  What we can't do is cut benefits or end SS after 20 years or so.

Edit:  Once you get all those cuts through which you think the American people want and get our budget to surplus, then hand out those tax cuts.  I'll support them when that happens.

You do not have to cut it at all.  Just start it later.  Everyone is retiring later anyway.  So start it at 70, or 75.  

Look forward to your support of the spending cut phase.  It is going to be great, you will see.  So excited.  

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #104 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
I like it more when you don't support them, using your past logic dewy, when your opponent balks the most, you must be doing something right

Hey, I think it is just fine for dewy to take the red pill.  It is good for him. 

Dewey, going to be a bit of shock.  After that many years on the blue pill, this is not the easy path.  Glad to have you on board.

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,061
Reply with quote  #105 
SS rates don’t need to increase, that’s absurd, they’re already astronomical.

The entire program needs to be phased out in favor of personal responsibility.
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #106 
"The entire SS program needs to be phased out in favor of personal responsibility."


That's all we need, millions of elderly who failed to adequately budget their retirement needs and are now broke, sick, and too old to work. Maybe if this weren't the great land of America, this might work.  We could simply look the other way as the old indigent folks wander off into the Country and die.  But we are America and we even help people in other Countries who aren't as self reliant as we think they should be.

I pay taxes to help my Country defend me against unsafe products, criminals, disease, and foreign enemies.  I don't mind kicking in a bit more to defend me against a colossal obligation brought about by millions of Americans who failed at being self reliant.

Btw, what percent of their income should a family set aside to cover their retirement years?

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 5,205
Reply with quote  #107 
Rabbit Hole Alert!

#Dewflection

__________________
"Dewey's attempt to return:  The biggest scandal on the UCS forum in 2017." 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 25,104
Reply with quote  #108 
Don't forget the churen
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,534
Reply with quote  #109 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
btw, what percent of their income should a family set aside to cover their retirement years?


As much as needed to take care of themselves later on so they can live comfortably. My parents did it and they came here in the 50’s with $200 to their name. My mom gets a SS check but she doesn’t need it. It’s all about choices and personal responsibility. Dems love to give choices but skip out on the second half.
Love hearing my 94 year old mom rail about how stupid liberals are. Hanahahaha

__________________
#SCOTUS

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,430
Reply with quote  #110 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
"The entire SS program needs to be phased out in favor of personal responsibility."


That's all we need, millions of elderly who failed to adequately budget their retirement needs and are now broke, sick, and too old to work. Maybe if this weren't the great land of America, this might work.  We could simply look the other way as the old indigent folks wander off into the Country and die.  But we are America and we even help people in other Countries who aren't as self reliant as we think they should be.

I pay taxes to help my Country defend me against unsafe products, criminals, disease, and foreign enemies.  I don't mind kicking in a bit more to defend me against a colossal obligation brought about by millions of Americans who failed at being self reliant.

Btw, what percent of their income should a family set aside to cover their retirement years?


Do you not even read you idiot?  He said phased out.  You immediately go to the Democrat dishonest talking points.

Also, if someone fails to budget for their retirement needs, why is that my problem? Why should any of us reward failure?  That is the problem with you bleeding heart liberals - always wanting to bail people out and not make them accountable for their poor choices.

Just like a person who chastises others for changing their forum names and then doing it himself.  
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,896
Reply with quote  #111 
Yeah dewey straight dishonest.  Says he is going to support reasonable spending cuts, going to take the red pill.  Then balks and goes all hyperbolic.
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 1,098
Reply with quote  #112 
Nobody said we'd have millions of poor elderly next year or the year after.  And no, it isn't your problem.  People should indeed be self reliant and not depend on others to pay their way. 

We could take the same approach with education.  If you want it, go get it.  Be self reliant.  Maybe you'd prefer to work the farm and skip math.  In many other Countries, that's exactly how it would be.   Don't want education, don't bother.  Don't want to save for retirement, don't bother.  Those Countries may just look the other way if and when they have millions of indigent.  But this Country is quite different and I know that's not an approach we could accept.  One reason I love this Country so I'm willing to fork up now while the cost to me would be far less expensive.  That said, I fully understand those who demand self reliance.  I'm all for it too but I need to limit my damages when many of my fellow citizens fail.  This SS program covers it at minimal cost to me.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,430
Reply with quote  #113 
Some people see a safety net and think it's a hammock.  In fact, lots of people do.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.